Hmmm... I think I see how it works now. It starts to make more sense. :) Something doesn't feel right though. Why Gitflow is so popular? How would it protect the companies from having bad commits? I need to think about it. Just wanted to let you know that I see your point.
[]s, Thiago. On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2015-01-28 22:29 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi <thi...@veronezi.org>: > > But if you only have master, any quick fix would bring unnecessary > baggage, > > right? > > I mean, merging the fix changes from 2.x.x to master would be trivial > > because it would only contain changes for that particular fix. > > > > If the release tags are on master, for a quick fix, we would need to > create > > a new branch from the latest release tag, do the fix in the new branch > and > > release it again. Where would this new release tag live? Do we keep this > > new branch just to hold a minor code change for a bug fix? > > If that's a fix for a recent release we just create a branch for the > release, release, tag, delete the release branch - like we'd have do > it just after the release ignoring all commit in between. > > Otherwise you are back to current status = you merge all commit done > on 2.x on master which is: > 1) useless > 2) makes a lot of noise when done > 3) makes getting started not obvious (need doc) > > > > > > []s, > > Thiago > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> well you shouldn't rebase/merge from a lower to upper branch IMO - ie > >> it is always fixed first on mainstream then backported if needed - or > >> just dev in the lower version if specific. > >> > >> That said this doesn't justify 2.x while master = 2.x > >> > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @rmannibucau > >> http://www.tomitribe.com > >> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com > >> https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> > >> > >> 2015-01-28 22:12 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi <thi...@veronezi.org>: > >> > Maybe it can be something like... > >> > > >> > Quick bug fix in 2.x.x: > >> > * You fix your issue in "2.x.x" > >> > * Call a vote for "2.x.x". > >> > * The vote passes. You merge "2.x.x" back to "master". > >> > * You create a new tag in 2.x.x -> Let's call it "tag 2.0.2" > >> > > >> > Normal 2.x.x release > >> > * You rebase "2.x.x" > >> > * You follow the same steps as the ones for "quick bug fixes in 2.x.x" > >> > > >> > This way we avoid the auxiliary branches. We just need to be sure that > >> > "2.x.x" is not a development branch. It needs to be stable. So, once > we > >> > rebase it, we need to make it stable before merging it back to master. > >> > "2.x.x" is the branch that contains the release tags. > >> > > >> > []s, > >> > Thiago. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Thiago Veronezi <thi...@veronezi.org > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi, > >> >> This is what I was thinking... > >> >> > >> >> Quick bug fix in 2.x.x: > >> >> * You create a new auxiliary branch from 2.x.x. -> Let's call it > "2.0.2" > >> >> as example > >> >> * You fix your issue in this new "2.0.2" branch > >> >> * Call a vote for "2.0.2". > >> >> * The vote passes. You merge "2.0.2" back to "2.x.x". > >> >> * You create a new tag in 2.x.x -> Let's call it "tag 2.0.2" > >> >> * You destroy the auxiliary branch "2.0.2" > >> >> * You merge "2.x.x" back to master. > >> >> > >> >> Normal 2.x.x release > >> >> * You rebase "2.x.x" > >> >> * You follow the same steps as the ones for "quick bug fixes in > 2.x.x" > >> >> > >> >> []s, > >> >> Thiago. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> If I have a fix to do in 2.x, where do I code? 2.x.x or master? > While > >> >>> master = 2.x I'm not convinced we need it. Doesnt solve the need of > a > >> >>> release branch while mvn tools are not compliant with tomee setup. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >>> @rmannibucau > >> >>> http://www.tomitribe.com > >> >>> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com > >> >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> 2015-01-28 21:52 GMT+01:00 Thiago Veronezi <thi...@veronezi.org>: > >> >>> > Please note that having "2.x.x" covers all the requirements: > >> >>> > * master is the bleeding edge - it doesn't need to be stable > >> >>> > * no code-freeze necessary > >> >>> > * stable and ready for production "2.x.x" branch > >> >>> > * quick bug fix release possible without interrupting development > on > >> >>> master > >> >>> > > >> >>> > []s, > >> >>> > Thiago. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > >> >>> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > >> >>> > wrote: > >> >>> > > >> >>> >> well while master = 2.x.x I wouldn't create it but yes (Tomcat > model > >> >>> >> basically is nice 1 maintaince branch by N-1 maintained version + > >> >>> >> trunk for last one). > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> >>> >> @rmannibucau > >> >>> >> http://www.tomitribe.com > >> >>> >> http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com > >> >>> >> https://github.com/rmannibucau > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >
