accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William Slacum <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] 1.7/2.0 branches and git workflow change
Date Tue, 07 Oct 2014 02:59:54 GMT
It seems to me you can get everything you want by merely getting rid of
master or making master just be the 1.7 branch. I'm not really concerned
about the name, because it's easy enough to figure out. Master duplicating
a tag doesn't really seem useful to me, save for "here's the highest
version we have released", which is of limited utility when a user can just
check the tags. I don't see the point in having master be something for the
sake of having master.

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Josh Elser <> wrote:

> Christopher wrote:
>> What purpose does the master branch serve if it's just the same as the
>>> last
>>> >  major release tag?
>>> >
>>> >
>> I think Josh had some specific opinions on this, but the general idea from
>> what I understood was that master is supposed to be stable...
>> representative of the latest, most modern release, because it's what a new
>> contributor would expect to fork to create a patch. That's hard to do if
>> the goalpost is moving a lot, and it makes feature merges more
>> complicated,
>> since contributors have to rebase or merge themselves in order to create a
>> patch that merges cleanly. Having a stable master makes it very easy to
>> contribute to the most recent release.
> No, I don't really care for a stable-only master (I think I diverge from
> the git-flow model in that regard). I like master to just be a
> "commits-go-here" area more than anything.

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