accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <>
Subject Re: [git] Documentation and Plan of Action
Date Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:15:38 GMT
On Jun 12, 2013 4:21 PM, "Christopher" <> wrote:
> 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...".
> > 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.

Are you planning to update it yourself or would you like me to? If you'd
like me to, please refresh my mind on the specifics :)
> > _Please_ give feedback now as to what is still unclear about after
> > the document. I'd hate to have wasted all of this time writing this to
> > 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
> > 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
> this.

Yay for your response from #infra. Thanks for taking the time to ask. I'll
remove those caveats from the doc.
> > 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

I'll update this section of the doc tonight.
> > Once we get these questions answered and the process reviewed, I believe
> > we're ready to move forward with the INFRA ticket.
> +1

Does anyone feel we need to call a vote on this plan? I feel lazy consensus
is good enough given our previous poll on wanting to move to git in the
first place.
> --
> Christopher L Tubbs II

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message