accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: [git] Documentation and Plan of Action
Date Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:21:29 GMT
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Josh Elser <> wrote:
> Alright, I think I covered all of the content that's needed.
> Disclaimer, I actually got Christopher to say "it's kind of long...". Yes,
> this was intended. I'd rather be (painfully) explicit front and lift out a
> TL;DR version from the master document.

I did read the whole thing. I would like to see a place for the
scenarios I contributed, but other than that, I think it's a
sufficient plan for transition.

> _Please_ give feedback now as to what is still unclear about after reading
> the document. I'd hate to have wasted all of this time writing this to just
> change our minds again in the near future

One thing mentioned is the release instructions (how to create/stage a
release). I'm not sure things will work exactly the same as for svn,
but I hope they'll be very close (it might require an extra 'git push'
or something, after the normal steps expressed in assemble/
I'd have to do some more experimenting with git and the
maven-release-plugin, after which I could write something up. I can do
this after the transition, though, and after I'm sure myself how to do
it smoothly. I don't think this should be a blocker, though.

> Also, please look for text in _emphasis_ as these are things which I do not
> believe were decided upon as a group. Copied here for your ease:
> 1. Need to ensure that deleting remote branches is not an issue. History is
> still intact so this should not grind against ASF policy.

IMO, this is probably the most important thing remaining to find out,
since the described workflow that seems to have consensus assumes

> 2. Do we have a nice write-up of the release policies?
> And, the last thing:
> Is everyone ok with the default branch when cloning the repository being
> latest unstable branch (synonymous with what "trunk" is now)? If so, is
> everyone ok with naming it `master`? This is what my vote is towards.

+1, +1

> Once we get these questions answered and the process reviewed, I believe
> we're ready to move forward with the INFRA ticket.


Christopher L Tubbs II

View raw message