accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: GIT
Date Wed, 05 Jun 2013 02:49:27 GMT

On 06/04/2013 10:26 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> 1.4.4 has been released. The first person finds some changes that should be
>> placed into a 1.4.5 release. As such, a 1.4.5-SNAPSHOT branch would be
>> created from the 1.4.4 tag.
> What's the advantage of 1.4.5-SNAPSHOT as opposed to a branch named
> 1.4.x? On other projects, there's an assumption of one branch per
> maintained minor version, with point releases as tags along they way.
> How is your more complex? scheme advantageous?
Much of this discussion is entirely based on the fact that my opinions 
were solicited while the majority of people tended not to agree with how 
I would prefer to manage branches.

As such, I've stopped arguing my points as, and will attempt to be 
detached.  Having been part of transition a decent-sized "subversion" 
team to git, which typically tries to manage with 2+ concurrent 
releases, I've developed my own opinions on how to manage this. Most of 
it stems from lack of moderation on where changes should be made in such 
an environment and that history is easily mucked up and when changes are 
placed in inappropriate places. If it seems completely absurd to even 
have this discussion (I don't fault you in the slightest -- I'm 99% 
there myself), I'm actively working a write-up to track concrete decisions.

As far as a minor-release branch name, I really just don't care. It's a 
name. My opinion is to tie it to something specific and meaningful. I do 
not find 1.4.x nomenclature meaningful, so, as such, I proposed 
alternatives.

Ultimately, I hope that those currently performing the most development 
should form their own opinion from the facts that have been presented 
when it comes time for a decision to be made.

Mime
View raw message