Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future
On 2012-04-02 21:42, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hi Peter, thanks for the feedback. But I fear we have a misunderstanding > here. See below. > > On 04/02/2012 08:14 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2012-04-02 18:13, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> Severity: wishlist >>> thanks >>> >>> Hello Automakers. >>> >>> After some real hand-on experience with the current branching policy >>> of Automake, I'm convinced the presence of the 'branch-X.Y' branches >>> is just an annoyance and a source of confusion, and that a better policy >>> would be to simply have a 'maint' branch (where to cut maintenance >>> releases directly from), a master branch (where maint is to be kept >>> regularly merged into, and from which the next major release is to be >>> derived at last), and possibly topic branches (only when needed, and >>> better if they are short-lived). Maybe we could also re-add the 'next' >>> branch to serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, but >>> than can be done in a second time (and only if the need arise). >>> >>> When a major release is done, the master branch is to be merged into >>> the maint branch, and then a "new" master branch created stemming >>> from the resulting commit. >> >> I think what you are proposing is better described as dropping the >> maint branch and doing development of features for both the stable >> series as well as the pending major release directly on the stable >> branch. >> > Absolutely not. In 'maint' will go bugfixes, minor new features > (with low protability of regressions), and possibly new warnings for > obsoleted features (that might be removed when we pass to a future > "major" version). In master will go "bigger" new feature, non-trivial > refactorings, and backward-incompatible changes (after their coming > has been duly announced and prepared in 'maint' and/or in earlier > releases). Ok, you didn't understand what I meant with dropping maint instead of release. My bad. I think the rest is just follow-up-confusion resulting from that misunderstanding. I'll try to explain what I mean again... I think we should do exactly as you describe above. However, for the class of changes that are related to the actual release from maint we should not use the maint branch, and therefore we need three branches. I.e. we should not commit, to maint, exactly those changes that we do not want on master but still want in the maintenance releases. E.g. we will *never* want the change bumping the version from 1.12.3 to 1.12.4 on master. Now, if we do not have both maint and branch-1.12, we will have to jump through hoops to not get those changes into master when we next merge maint into master. I see two alternatives if there is no branch-1.12 (but see below, near the end, when I think of a third option with short-lived branches) 1. resolve the merge conflicts, and hope that all changes that we don't want on master really do result in conflicts so that we don't neglect to fix them up in the merge. 2. merge from maint into master before the release-related commits and then do a dummy merge (--strategy=ours) afterwards so that the changes are ignored when we do a real merge later. And hope that no real changes have weaseled their way into the "release window" between the pre-release merge and the dummy post-release merge. I just happen to think those hoops are a worse cure than the disease (an extra branch) they are targeting. I.e., I think that maintenance releases should happen from a separate branch from maint, so that maint always merges as cleanly as possible into master. That separate branch is branch-x.y. I fail to see what is wrong with the current setup. So, how do you intend to jump through the hoops described above without the extra branch? I only see one argument for killing the third branch, and that is the msvc confusion. And yes, we did make a mess of it with the msvc branch, but we have learned and will not be so easily duped into pulling in changes in branch-x.y without going via the maint branch the next time we have the urge to merge a topic-branch with code suitable for master into a maintenance release. > This is basically the situation we have today, but without the extra > indirections and possibility of confusion (i.e., another 'msvc'-style > mess will be made less likely). I think we have learned that lesson, I don't think we will mess up like that again. I therefore do not think it's a valid argument for killing the third branch. >> When you wish to make a new release you simply make sure >> you have merged the latest branch-x.y into master, then create a new >> branch-x. or branch-.0 from where the current master is >> and you're done. >> > You mean that if we have just released automake 1.13, the release > 1.13.1 should be cut from master? That is absolutely *not* what I > want to do. Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly enough. That's of course not what I meant. Make that "When you wish to make a
Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future
Hi Jim. On 04/02/2012 08:47 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > ... >> WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and >> implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12 >> release. > > I agree. > IMHO, you won't go wrong following git.git's example. > Glad you agree. As for your nits you've pointed out: I've fixed them both. Thanks, Stefano
Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future
Hi Peter, thanks for the feedback. But I fear we have a misunderstanding here. See below. On 04/02/2012 08:14 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2012-04-02 18:13, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Severity: wishlist >> thanks >> >> Hello Automakers. >> >> After some real hand-on experience with the current branching policy >> of Automake, I'm convinced the presence of the 'branch-X.Y' branches >> is just an annoyance and a source of confusion, and that a better policy >> would be to simply have a 'maint' branch (where to cut maintenance >> releases directly from), a master branch (where maint is to be kept >> regularly merged into, and from which the next major release is to be >> derived at last), and possibly topic branches (only when needed, and >> better if they are short-lived). Maybe we could also re-add the 'next' >> branch to serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, but >> than can be done in a second time (and only if the need arise). >> >> When a major release is done, the master branch is to be merged into >> the maint branch, and then a "new" master branch created stemming >> from the resulting commit. > > I think what you are proposing is better described as dropping the > maint branch and doing development of features for both the stable > series as well as the pending major release directly on the stable > branch. > Absolutely not. In 'maint' will go bugfixes, minor new features (with low protability of regressions), and possibly new warnings for obsoleted features (that might be removed when we pass to a future "major" version). In master will go "bigger" new feature, non-trivial refactorings, and backward-incompatible changes (after their coming has been duly announced and prepared in 'maint' and/or in earlier releases). This is basically the situation we have today, but without the extra indirections and possibility of confusion (i.e., another 'msvc'-style mess will be made less likely). > When you wish to make a new release you simply make sure > you have merged the latest branch-x.y into master, then create a new > branch-x. or branch-.0 from where the current master is > and you're done. > You mean that if we have just released automake 1.13, the release 1.13.1 should be cut from master? That is absolutely *not* what I want to do. Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly enough. >> WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and >> implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12 >> release. > > Consider what will happen if you don't have maint branches, > > [SNIP] > I snip mostly of the rest of your arguments, now that it is clear I still *want* to have a maint branch. > I think it's immensely more clean to have the current dual maint and > branch-1.11 approach for each expected bug-fix series. > Here I don't follow you. Why are not 'maint' a 'master' enough exactly? > When 1.12 is released, maint should probably move along with it > Yes, and a "new" master created, from which 1.13 will be finally derived. > and a maint-1.11 can be created when needed, if a security fix is ever > needed for the 1.11 series. > Agreed. But we don't need this branch right away, since the last commit in the 'maint' of the 1.11.x series will be properly tagged, so we can easily access need and create a bug-fix branch out of it if and when the need arises. > Hopefully, we will not need a maint-1.11, but such things > are as they are... > OK, so it sounds like we are in violent agreement in this matter. > Either that, or you'd need to do dummy merges from branch-x.y into > master after the release-related commits just to avoid future merge > conflicts, but dummy merges are ugly in my opinion. And branches are > cheap. > Tags even more -- you don't pay them with the risk of confusion. > I think we have learned not to merge new features past the maintenance > branch (i.e. directly into the release branch) > Huh? That *exactly* what should happen most of the time! It's the AM_PROG_AR situation that was an unusual case, in that we didn't want the delay in the 1.12 release to keep this useful and low-risk feature as "vaporware" for even more time -- so we merged it into the maintenance branch. Regards, Stefano
Re: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future
Stefano Lattarini wrote: ... > WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and > implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12 > release. I agree. IMHO, you won't go wrong following git.git's example. > diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING ... > +* The Automake git tree currently carries two basic branches: 'master' for > + the current development, and 'maint' for maintenance and bug fixes. The > + maint branch should be kept regularly merged into the master branch. > + It is advisable to merge only after a set of related commits have been > + applied, to avoid introducing too much noise in the history. > + > +* There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for new > + developments. They should be based off of a common ancestor of all > + active branches to which the feature should or might be merged later. > + in the future, we might introduce a special branch named 'next' that > + may serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, should > + they not be ready for master yet. reorder slightly: they not yet be ready for master. > +* When a major release is done, the master branch is to be merged into Does this convey your meaning? After making a major release, the master branch is to be merged into > + the maint branch, and then a "new" master branch created stemming > + from the resulting commit. > > * When fixing a bug (especially a long-standing one), it may be useful >to commit the fix to a new temporary branch based off the commit that > @@ -141,12 +126,6 @@ >the active branches descending from the buggy commit. This offers a >simple way to fix the bug consistently and effectively. > > -* There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for new > developments. > - They should be based off of a common ancestor of all active branches to > - which the feature should or might be merged later. The next branch may > - serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, should they not > - be ready for master yet. > - > * For merges from branches other than maint, prefer 'git merge --log' over >plain 'git merge', so that a later 'git log' gives an indication of which >actual patches were merged even when they don't appear early in the list.
change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future
Severity: wishlist thanks Hello Automakers. After some real hand-on experience with the current branching policy of Automake, I'm convinced the presence of the 'branch-X.Y' branches is just an annoyance and a source of confusion, and that a better policy would be to simply have a 'maint' branch (where to cut maintenance releases directly from), a master branch (where maint is to be kept regularly merged into, and from which the next major release is to be derived at last), and possibly topic branches (only when needed, and better if they are short-lived). Maybe we could also re-add the 'next' branch to serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, but than can be done in a second time (and only if the need arise). When a major release is done, the master branch is to be merged into the maint branch, and then a "new" master branch created stemming from the resulting commit. WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12 release. Regards, Stefano -*-*-*- diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING index 29c0e4a..b34cee6 100644 --- a/HACKING +++ b/HACKING @@ -103,37 +103,22 @@ latest stable version of Autoconf installed and available early in your PATH. -* The git tree currently carries a number of branches: master for the - current development, and release branches named branch-X.Y. The maint - branch serves as common ground for both master and the active release - branches. Changes intended for both should be applied to maint, which - should then be merged to release branches and master, of course after - suitable testing. It is advisable to merge only after a set of related - commits have been applied. - -* Example work flow for patches to maint: - - # 1. Checkout the "maint" branch: - git checkout maint - - # 2. Apply the patch(es) with "git am" (or create them with $EDITOR): - git am -3 0*.patch - # 2a. Run required tests, if any ... - - # 3. Merge maint into branch-1.11: - git checkout branch-1.11 - git merge maint - # 3a. Run required tests, if any ... - - # 4. Redo steps 3 and 3a for master: - git checkout master - git merge maint - # testing ... - - # 5. Push the maint and master branches: - git push --dry-run origin maint branch-1.11 master - # if all seems ok, then actually push: - git push origin maint branch-1.11 master +* The Automake git tree currently carries two basic branches: 'master' for + the current development, and 'maint' for maintenance and bug fixes. The + maint branch should be kept regularly merged into the master branch. + It is advisable to merge only after a set of related commits have been + applied, to avoid introducing too much noise in the history. + +* There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for new + developments. They should be based off of a common ancestor of all + active branches to which the feature should or might be merged later. + in the future, we might introduce a special branch named 'next' that + may serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, should + they not be ready for master yet. + +* When a major release is done, the master branch is to be merged into + the maint branch, and then a "new" master branch created stemming + from the resulting commit. * When fixing a bug (especially a long-standing one), it may be useful to commit the fix to a new temporary branch based off the commit that @@ -141,12 +126,6 @@ the active branches descending from the buggy commit. This offers a simple way to fix the bug consistently and effectively. -* There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for new developments. - They should be based off of a common ancestor of all active branches to - which the feature should or might be merged later. The next branch may - serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, should they not - be ready for master yet. - * For merges from branches other than maint, prefer 'git merge --log' over plain 'git merge', so that a later 'git log' gives an indication of which actual patches were merged even when they don't appear early in the list.
Re: [FYI] {master} hacking: autotools-generated files are not committed anymore
Stefano Lattarini wrote: > * HACKING (Working with git) Generated files like 'configure', > 'Makefile.in' and 'aclocal.m4' are not committed anymore in our > git repository by some months. Remove obsoleted advices that Hi Stefano, Sorry I didn't see this sooner: s/advices/advice/ (you may want to add a local commit-hook check for this one. there are three other uses in "git log" output) Another common one, "anymore" s/are not committed anymore/are no longer committed/ > assumed they still were. > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini > --- > HACKING |4 > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING > index bb7faad..29c0e4a 100644 > --- a/HACKING > +++ b/HACKING > @@ -103,10 +103,6 @@ >latest stable version of Autoconf installed and available early >in your PATH. > > -* Dependent files aclocal.m4, configure and Makefile.in in all > - directories should be up to date in the git repository, so that > - the changes in them can be easily noticed and analyzed. > - > * The git tree currently carries a number of branches: master for the >current development, and release branches named branch-X.Y. The maint >branch serves as common ground for both master and the active release
[FYI] {master} hacking: autotools-generated files are not committed anymore
* HACKING (Working with git) Generated files like 'configure', 'Makefile.in' and 'aclocal.m4' are not committed anymore in our git repository by some months. Remove obsoleted advices that assumed they still were. Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini --- HACKING |4 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING index bb7faad..29c0e4a 100644 --- a/HACKING +++ b/HACKING @@ -103,10 +103,6 @@ latest stable version of Autoconf installed and available early in your PATH. -* Dependent files aclocal.m4, configure and Makefile.in in all - directories should be up to date in the git repository, so that - the changes in them can be easily noticed and analyzed. - * The git tree currently carries a number of branches: master for the current development, and release branches named branch-X.Y. The maint branch serves as common ground for both master and the active release -- 1.7.9
[FYI] {master} hacking: simplify documentation of bootstrapping process
* HACKING (Working with git): Do not suggest that, to ensure the bootstrapping process is performed with the latest autotools, the developer could explicitly pass $AUTOCONF and $AUTOM4TE in the environment to the ./bootstrap and ./configure invocations: that is a little tricky and quite fragile. Instead, suggest to just put modern-enough version of the autotools early in PATH. Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini --- HACKING |8 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING index 2e74d9a..bb7faad 100644 --- a/HACKING +++ b/HACKING @@ -100,12 +100,8 @@ tree, so the resulting files (aclocal.m4 and Makefile.in) should be the same as you would get if you install this version of automake and use it to generate those files. Be sure to have the - latest stable version of Autoconf installed. If such version is - not installed as "autoconf", pass it explicitly (along with the - accompanying "autom4te") when calling 'bootstrap' and 'configure'. - For example: -$ AUTOCONF=autoconf2.68 AUTOM4TE=autom4te2.68 ./bootstrap -$ ./configure AUTOCONF=autoconf2.68 AUTOM4TE=autom4te2.68 + latest stable version of Autoconf installed and available early + in your PATH. * Dependent files aclocal.m4, configure and Makefile.in in all directories should be up to date in the git repository, so that -- 1.7.9
