well it is by design opposed to apache way since if it is used it is to have the ability to change commit history - if not it is really useless.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau http://www.tomitribe.com http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com https://github.com/rmannibucau 2015-01-28 10:57 GMT+01:00 Andy Gumbrecht <agumbre...@tomitribe.com>: > I know I set it up this way, but I am really +0 at the moment. I don't feel > any anger towards it though. It is not 'my way', rather the Gitflow way. > > I'm not going to push it other than to point to the description of Gitflow. > It's only going to make sense if you use it, and then really only if you > play release manager, and then only if you are managing both 1.7.x and > develop releases. > > The scenario is described here in extreme detail - > https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/gitflow-workflow > > It just 'looks' future safe to do it that way, and until the Gitflow has > been tried and tested on the upcoming releases we will not know. Jon should > give us his feedback after the releases are done. And then we should all > look at the repo. The decision to use it was based on that description and > they guy who 'invented' it - > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > > I actually don't know what is so painful about using '-b develop' on the > initial developer checkout? That's it, everything else is identical. As a > developer it is trivial. Where are the hard line drawbacks to it other than > to say it's crap? Why is is so painful for some? I really want to understand > what is causing the hate? > > The simple idea is that 'master' only ever contains production ready code, > that's it. No more no less. > > Anyway, if everyone agrees on a way forward then votes on it then I really > am +0, as it is not hard to do it either way. > > That doesn't mean: > -1 It's crap! > > That does mean: > -1 It's crap because.... and I will document 'my way' for everyone to follow > to the letter. > > Andy. > > > On 28/01/2015 09:55, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> >> hehe feel less alone now, +1 >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau >> http://www.tomitribe.com >> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com >> https://github.com/rmannibucau >> >> >> 2015-01-28 9:53 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>: >>> >>> Hi folks! >>> >>> Just noticed that our branch naming schema in GIT is still outerwordly >>> fucked up. >>> >>> >>> >>> Why don't we do it as everyone else does? >>> What does this crap of development branch do? It's total nonsense to have >>> it! >>> >>> There is NO RTC for development at whole ASF except for MAINTENANCE >>> BRANCHES maybe. All the standard community work is CTR (Commmit Then Review) >>> That's a community wide modus operandi and we should follow it as well. >>> >>> >>> So I for one will totally ignore this development branch when working on >>> the TCK in the next days. >>> >>> Can we please finally merge in all the good work in the development >>> branch to master and delete it finally? >>> >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >> >> >> >> -- >> Andy Gumbrecht >> https://twitter.com/AndyGeeDe >> http://www.tomitribe.com
