accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: GIT
Date Tue, 04 Jun 2013 22:11:33 GMT
Also, I think short-lived feature/bugfix/etc. branches make sense in
the form, "<apacheID>/ACCUMULO-<issue#>".

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
> I can get behind this also, but I have an additional suggestion that
> diverges from the proposed model at
> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ (suggested
> earlier in this thread):
>
> I'm not a fan of separate "master" and "develop" branches, since
> "master" is only used as a pointer for tracking the latest and
> greatest stable tag. I think just a "master" would be fine (for active
> development on the next anticipated major release), because I think
> it's safe to assume people know what tags are and how to use them if
> they want a stable version. If we *really* need a pointer, I'd rather
> call it "stable", as it's more explicit.
>
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II
> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/4/13 9:35 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>  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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why?  What problems are you thinking of w/ long-running minor release
>>>> branches?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do not like them. It's mainly a personal opinion. Most modern SCM tools
>>> (even that 'terrible' SVN) strongly encourage you to release early and
>>> often. As such, I don't like having branches named like tags/releases. This
>>> is mostly a personal opinion; however, you can also read that as opinions
>>> after using git for ~5 years.
>>>
>>
>> Discussed this w/ Christopher and Josh.  I understand Josh's point of view
>> a bit better now.  One thing I was unsure about was what to name these
>> transient branches for gathering bug fixes.  Christopher suggested using
>> snapshots, which seems very natural to me.
>>
>>   * For serious bugs in 1.4.3  take 1.4.3 tag and create 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT
>> branch
>>   * Merge bug fixes to 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT from bug fix branches
>>   * Eventually tag 1.4.4 and delete 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT branch
>>   * 1.4.5-SNAPSHOT would only be created on an as needed basis.
>>
>> I think this is nicer than leaving a 1.4 branch around.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>  >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.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>> It seems like you have a specific workflow in mind, but its not clear to
>>>> me
>>>> exactly what you are thinking.  Are you planning on elaborating on this
>>>> tonight?  Is this workflow written up somewhere?  If its not written up,
a
>>>> few quick example scenarios would probably help me get on the same page.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's correct. I don't have the time to make a good write-up right now.
>>> I'll try to outline what I think would work fully tonight, but I tried to
>>> outline the general gist of what I think is best.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  >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.
>>>>>
>>>>

Mime
View raw message