Just added info about git-flow http://struts.staging.apache.org/git-for-struts.html
2014-01-29 Lukasz Lenart <lukaszlen...@apache.org>: > 2014-01-28 Rene Gielen <rgie...@apache.org>: >> Am 28.01.14 12:19, schrieb Lukasz Lenart: >>> I don't think we need git-flow - we don't have huge development team, >>> there is (almost) no situation when we work together on some >>> issue/feature. And learning the whole flow is useless (at this >>> moment). >>> >> >> Then I'm wondering a bit why we wanted to move to git in the first >> place. It was my impression that we wanted to profit especially from >> advanced processes like easy feature branching and merging, e.g. >> - isolate features to make their impact better assessable >> - allow for (yet not require!) code reviews before features are merged >> to mainline - especially useful for our new committers, IMO >> - allow cherry picking for releases >> - backporting features from development to stable branches >> - allow for collaborative working on groundbreaking features and ideas >> for new major versions >> - allow isolated work and straight forward, well documented processes >> for hotfix releases, including multiple merging to all working branches >> - allow for external contributions while working on new features, solely >> targeted towards such feature >> ... to name just a few. > > All these points are valid for git, but they don't proof that we must > use the git-flow ;-) > >> As for me, I did not find it hard to learn git-flow to a level that I >> felt my own and my team's productivity increased. I started with forcing >> myself to work based on feature branches and the follow-up processes, >> only to to find me loving it soon and missing it everywhere where I was >> forced to use e.g. svn where such processes are PITA. >> >>> I'd rather start with something simpler and what we can understand and >>> explain each others - using git-flow means we must understand how it >>> works in first place and it isn't just to read some blog posts - >>> understand the whole philosophy behind. >>> >> >> I agree that git-flow is not the only possible way to go, and that we >> might want to establish our own solution. Of course, it is well thought >> out and flexible for both keeping things simple if you want to, as well >> as offering advanced tooling for advanced problems. In either case - >> adapting git-flow or working out our own process - I would opt for a >> model that is both easy to use and grows with our needs. I see advanced >> needs if we start our work on S3, and if we might manage to attract more >> contributors along the way. Certainly we would want to establish a flow >> that does not limit ourselves in future, wouldn't we? >> >> Just to give an example, I started some prototyping experiments on how >> multiple possible return value types and result containers could work >> out (inspired by Spring MVC and Play). To advance on this, I would like >> to share this and have others review and potentially collaborate on >> this. But for a rather long time, this might stay experimental and not >> ready even for development branches that we might want to offer >> adventurous users to use in their projects. I'm pretty sure that there >> might be a lot of such experiments and ideas that develop around the >> idea of bringing out a new major release. > > Ok, I'm still not fully convinced but it doesn't make sense to spend > more time on this topic - let's adopt the git-flow! > > > Regards > -- > Łukasz > + 48 606 323 122 http://www.lenart.org.pl/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
