agree. Gitflow is basically a workflow replacement of what we have with out commit mails anyway. This is something we technically do not need at ASF. Plus it requires extra manpower for managing the merges...
LieGrue, strub > On Wednesday, 28 January 2015, 11:00, Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]>: >> 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 <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> 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 >
