accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Thinking about branch names
Date Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:59:40 GMT
I see lots of +1s on this thread, and no -1s. There seems to be a lot of
consensus. Josh, do you want to go ahead and make this change?


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

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> Good point, Christopher. I didn't really consider projects outside of the
> Hadoop ecosystem. As long as we're cognizant (if our versioning strings do
> get "better" moving forward), I think this shouldn't be an issue. Hold me
> honest :)
>
>
> Christopher wrote:
>
>> Another point to consider here is that many projects (such as guava) omit
>> ".0" suffixes on versions (releasing, for instance 11, followed by 11.0.1
>> and 11.0.2 for bugfixes).
>>
>> It's probably not a big deal. It's only a slight risk of confusion, and
>> SCM
>> is not for users, it's for devs, so I'm fine with the succinctness, as
>> long
>> as we don't ever create tags with the same names.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Christopher L Tubbs II
>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Josh Elser<josh.elser@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Personally, I like the succinctness of "1.5" over the ones you
>>> presented. I don't feel like "1.5.x" or "1.5-dev" tell me anything
>>> more than "1.5" already did so they just turn into more typing. I
>>> don't really think there's a high chance that we ever abandon x.y.z
>>> version strings, so there isn't a big chance for it to look like a
>>> release.
>>>
>>> For context, Hadoop (and other related projects) tend to do a
>>> "branch-X" and "branch-X.Y". For the same reasons as above, I feel
>>> like the "branch-" is unnecessary.
>>>
>>> Is anyone else concerned about potential confusion having "x.y" branch
>>> names?
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>

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