accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Havanki <bhava...@clouderagovt.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Thinking about branch names
Date Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:59:36 GMT
+1

I also like Dave's suggestion of branching just in time for a release to
keep work on it isolated. That would be an appropriate action to take at
feature freeze.

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Corey Nolet <cjnolet@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> Using separate branches in this manner just adds complexity. I was
> wondering myself why we needed to create separate branches when all we're
> doing is tagging/deleting the already released ones. The only difference
> between where one leaves off and another begins  is the name of the branch.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1 to static dev branch names per release series. (this would also fix
> the
> > Jenkins spam when the builds break due to branch name changes)
> >
> > However, I kind of prefer 1.5.x or 1.5-dev, or similar, over simply 1.5,
> > which looks so much like a release version that I wouldn't want it to
> > generate any confusion.
> >
> > Also, for reference, here's a few git commands that might help some
> people
> > avoid the situation that happened:
> > git remote update
> > git remote prune $(git remote)
> > git config --global push.default current # git < 1.8
> > git config --global push.default simple # git >= 1.8
> >
> > The situation seems to primarily have occurred because of some pushes
> that
> > succeeded because the local clone was not aware that the remote branches
> > had disappeared. Pruning will clean those up, so that you'll get an error
> > if you try to push. Simple/current push strategy will ensure you don't
> push
> > all matching branches by default. Josh's proposed solution makes it less
> > likely the branches will disappear/change on a remote, but these are
> still
> > useful git commands to be aware of, and are related enough to this
> > situation, I thought I'd share.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > After working on 1.5.2 and today's branch snafu, I think I've come to
> the
> > > conclusion that our branch naming is more pain than it's worth (I
> > believe I
> > > was the one who primarily argued for branch names as they are current
> > > implemented, so take that as you want).
> > >
> > > * Trying to making a new branch for the "next" version as a release is
> > > happening forces you to fight with Maven. Maven expects that your
> "next"
> > is
> > > going to be on the same branch and the way it makes commits and bumps
> > > versions for you encourages this. Using a new branch for "next" is more
> > > manual work for the release manager.
> > >
> > > * The time after we make a release, there's a bit of confusion (I do it
> > > too, just not publicly... yet) about "what branch do I put this fix for
> > > _version_ in?". It's not uncommon to put it in the "old" branch instead
> > of
> > > the new one. The problem arises when the old branch has already been
> > > deleted. If a developer has an old version of that branch, there's
> > nothing
> > > to tell them "hey, your copy of this branch is behind the remote's copy
> > of
> > > this branch. I'm not accepting your push!" Having a single branch for a
> > > release line removes this hassle.
> > >
> > > "Pictorially", I'm thinking we would change from the active branches
> > > {1.5.3-SNAPSHOT, 1.6.1-SNAPSHOT, 1.6.2-SNAPSHOT, master} to {1.5, 1.6,
> > > master}. (where a git tag would exist for the 1.6.1 RCs).
> > >
> > > IIRC, the big argument for per-release branches was of encouraging
> > > frequent, targeted branches (I know the changes for this version go in
> > this
> > > branch). I think most of this can be mitigated by keeping up with
> > frequent
> > > releases and coordination with the individual cutting the release.
> > >
> > > In short, I'm of the opinion that I think we should drop the
> > ".z-SNAPSHOT"
> > > suffix from branch names (e.g. 1.5.3-SNAPSHOT) and move to a shorter
> > "x.y"
> > > (e.g. 1.5) that exists for the lifetime of that version. I think we
> could
> > > also use this approach if/when we change our versioning to start using
> > the
> > > "x" component of "x.y.z".
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > - Josh
> > >
> >
>



-- 
// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

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