I have not used trunk-based development myself, but I think the GitFlow strategy might suit SDAP development better (at least for now). Currently, SDAP repos don't have the automated tests, code coverage, etc. that is necessary for continuous integration to work.
Best, Nga On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 4:17 PM Stepheny Perez <skpe...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I propose we discuss and stick to a version control management practice > across all SDAP repos moving forward. Currently, our repos are all using > different branching strategies which makes development and release management > difficult. > > I've personally used > [GitFlow](https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/gitflow-workflow) > extensively, and have found it to work well and can easily integrate with > CI/CD. However, the page I linked above seems to indicate this is an older > strategy and not in line with best practices. Alternatively, we can explore > [trunk-based > development](https://www.atlassian.com/continuous-delivery/continuous-integration/trunk-based-development), > which seems straightforward enough. > > If we were to use something like GitFlow, that might look something like this > for SDAP: > > - `main` branch: contains the latest released code. > - `release/*` branch: contains candidate release code. PR and merge into > `main` upon release. > - `develop` branch: contains completed features ready to be pulled into next > release > - `feature/SDAP-xxx` branch: Feature branch containing changes needed to > accomplish SDAP-xxx ticket. PR and merge into `develop` branch. > > The most important thing is that we are consistent with whatever strategy we > choose across all SDAP repos. Does anyone have any input as to which strategy > might suit SDAP best? > > Stepheny
