Roman, more details please refer to [1]. As this article described, The HEAD of `master` always reflects a production-ready state, while `develop` always reflects a state with the latest delivered development changes for the next release. IMO, this positions of the two branches are clear and make sense.
[1]. http://rocketmq.incubator.apache.org/docs/branching-model Regards, yukon On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Roman Shtykh <[email protected]> wrote: > Yukon, I am ok with this model if you insist. But I wanted to know the > rationale behind switching to it because the advantages were not obvious. > Roman > > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 8:30 PM, yukon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi roman, > > I know your second point, I think it's a standard issue about `stable`, and > I insist adopt the new branching model unless it have obvious > disadvantages. > > IMO, we may try this model for some time, and rollback to old model if > there are some problems. > > Feel free to let me know if you insist develop on `master` branch. > > Regards, > yukon > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Roman Shtykh <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Sorry Xinyu, I got confused by recent mails in this mailing list > > discussing RTC vs CTR.But it doesn't cancel my second point :) > > Roman > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 5:35 PM, Xinyu Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Actually, we use CTR for committers while RTC for contributors. ⊙▽⊙ > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Roman Shtykh <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > I see the point. But we don't use CTR, do we? :)Also, it's a matter of > > names, but developing in the default 'master' and having 'stable' branch > > does not require any major changes. > > Roman > > > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2017 5:01 PM, Xinyu Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, if use CTR mechanism, the rollback or little polishes maybe will > > happen very often, this new branching model can cover this situation. > > BTW, as Xin and Roman mentioned, develop on `master` branch doesn’t have > > problems, so does develop on `develop` branch. > > Regards, yukon > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Von Gosling <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > The master branch is a stable baseline. > > The develop branch is a CI baseline. > > > > IMO, the develop and master branch model are easy to scalable, especially > > for CTR mechanism and more and more guys contributions. :-) > > > > > 在 2017年3月10日，15:39，Xin Wang <[email protected]> 写道： > > > > > > Agree with Roman, I don't think developing on master is a problem. Just > > > like many bigdata projects: Storm,Spark,Flink.. > > > > > > - Xin > > > > > > 2017-03-10 15:34 GMT+08:00 yukon <[email protected]>: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> We also use tags for releases, but make master branch in a stable > state > > may > > >> be better. And this branching model is very classical and used widely. > > >> > > >> Regards > > >> > > >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Roman Shtykh > <[email protected] > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Guys, what is the reason for not developing on master branch and > using > > >>> tags for releases? It works for many other projects. > > >>> Roman > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Friday, March 10, 2017 3:14 PM, yukon <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Hi all, > > >>> > > >>> Our new branching model has been put into effect, more details please > > >> refer > > >>> to [1]. > > >>> > > >>> So, please kindly send pull requests to develop branch instead of > > master > > >>> branch. Thanks. > > >>> > > >>> [1]. http://rocketmq.incubator.apache.org/docs/branching-model > > >>> > > >>> Regards, > > >>> yukon > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
