Thanks Nga, let's proceed with gitflow for now. I'll work on updating our SDAP repositories to this practice.
Stepheny On 2024/01/17 22:18:16 Nga Chung wrote: > 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 >
