accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron G <>
Subject Re: GIT
Date Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:41:20 GMT
You may want to look at:

as a branching strategy. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 4, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser <> wrote:

> Yay, Git. Wait...
> I was going to wait to respond until I collected all of the info, but since I still haven't
gotten that done yet, I figured I should just say "sure".
> The one thing I do want to get hammered out is the general workflow we plan to use. I
believe that one "unstable" or "development" branch will satisfy most use cases as we typically
don't have much active development against previous major releases.
> The thing I don't care for (putting it mildly) is long-running minor-release branches.
I'm curious of suggestions that people might have for how to work around this. One possibility
would be to be git-tag heavy while being more lax on official apache releases.
> Merits:
> - Less merging through 2-3 branches which a bug-fix might apply (1.4->1.5->1.6)
> - Less clutter in the branch space (could be moot if we impose some sort of "hierarchy"
in branch names, e.g. bugfixes/ACCUMULO-XXXX, minor/ACCUMULO-XXXX)
> - Quicker availability of fixes for consumers (after a fix, a new tag is made)
> Downsides:
> - Could create more work for us as we would be noting new minor releases. Does Christopher's
release work mitigate some/most of this?
> - Creating git-tags without making an official release _might_ skirt a line on ASF releases.
Some artifact that is intended for public consumption is meant to follow the release process.
> Personally, I'd consider making the bold assumption that, over time, we will create the
infrastructure for ourselves to make better and better releases which will also mitigate this.
I'm curious what everyone else thinks.
> I'll try to make time tonight to get info on all of the necessary below.
> On 6/1/13 4:28 PM, Christopher wrote:
>> Reviewing this thread, it seems everyone is pretty much in favor of
>> this. I propose we proceed by electing a "git transition advisor"...
>> someone who:
>> 1) is sufficiently knowledgeable with git to identify roadblocks
>> during the transition and is willing to make it a point to propose and
>> follow through with solutions,
>> 2) can serve as the main point of contact with INFRA tickets related
>> to the transition,
>> 3) can advise other developers on best practices for things like when
>> to branch, where to put contribs, when to delete a branch (if ever),
>> etc. for things related to the shared repo.
>> Item 3 is really something we can all do to the extent that our
>> expertise allows, but it'd be nice to have somebody willing to do item
>> 2, in the context of their experience in item 1.
>> I would like to nominate Josh Elser, because I think he's qualified,
>> and because his exact response to this inquiry was "Yay, git."
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Christopher <> wrote:
>>> I'm sure this has been entertained before, I'm starting to think that
>>> we should seriously consider switching to git, maybe sooner (during
>>> 1.6 development cycle?).
>>> --
>>> Christopher L Tubbs II

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message