accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Corey Nolet <cjno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Thinking about branch names
Date Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:23:16 GMT
+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
> >
>

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