activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Taylor <andy.tayl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Git workflow for committers
Date Wed, 10 Jun 2015 06:36:16 GMT
The branch can be removed, I know because I accidentally created one :). 
Im just wondering if these branches appear in Github?

Andy

On 10/06/15 03:48, Clebert wrote:
> As long as the branch can be removed later. I am not sure it can. Would need to check
first.
>
> You could squash commits and rebate before pushing on master then.
>
>
> -- Clebert Suconic typing on the iPhone.
>
>> On Jun 9, 2015, at 22:34, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 9, 2015, at 9:56 PM, Clebert <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1. Although Only question I have:
>>>
>>> With git it's not really needed to create a branch in the main repo for temporary
branches.
>>
>> Depends on the purpose…..  If I was going to work on a relatively large idea/change
and want to collaborate with another committer, a branch at Apache makes a lot of sense. 
 For example, I’m thinking about creating one to work on the CXF change.  I can keep working
on it, all commits would still go to the commits@ list so everyone can see what’s going
on.     Others could help out, etc…  Once “done”, it could be merged to master and the
branch removed.
>>
>>> But If someone did it thought.  Is it easy to remove a branch with Apache git?
 I have the impression that you need Infra guys to delete branches?
>>> If only infra structure guys can delete branches I would not encourage branches
on the main repo.
>>
>> The only branch you cannot remove is master.   Anything else is just like normal.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- Clebert Suconic typing on the iPhone.
>>>
>>>> On Jun 9, 2015, at 20:22, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I guess if it was up to me to actually write a formal doc describing the
process it would go something like:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ———————
>>>>
>>>> ActiveMQ uses a Commit-Then-Review process for getting changes contributed
to the development branches.   In general, this means the ActiveMQ committers are free to
directly commit their own work to master and push those changes to the canonical repository
at Apache.   However, the expectation is that the developer has made a good effort to test
their changes and is reasonably confident that the changes that are being committed will not
“break the build.”
>>>>
>>>> What does it mean to be reasonably confident?  That may depend on the developer.
 If the developer has run the same maven commands that the CI builds are running, they can
likely be reasonably confident.   However, if the changes are significant, touches a wide
area of code, or even if the developer just wants a second opinion, they are encouraged to
engage other members of the community to obtain an additional review prior to commit.   This
can easily be done via a pull request on github, a patch file attached to an email or JIRA,
committed to a branch in the Apache git repo, etc…  There are a variety of options open
to them.    Having additional eyes looking at significant changes prior to committing to the
main development branches is definitely encouraged if it helps obtain the “reasonable confidence”
that the build is not broken and code quality has not decreased.  We also have automatic builds
setup to test github pull requests in advance to help establish a good lev
 e
l of confidence in the build.
>>>>
>>>> However, “things happen”.   We’re all human.   In the case where the
build does break, the expectation is that the developer will make a best effort to get the
builds fixed in a reasonable amount of time.    If it cannot be fixed in a reasonable amount
of time, the commit can be reverted and re-reviewed.
>>>>
>>>> ———————
>>>>
>>>> Everyone:  does that about cover it?    Did I miss anything?    The github
pull requests and gui tools are definitely a good tool chain in certain cases and I would
still encourage those folks that find value in them to continue using them.   However, they
cannot be “required”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 9, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to stay with the existing CTR practice that is well established
in the
>>>>>> ActiveMQ community. That's why committership is granted. It's a level
of
>>>>>> trust and confidence that you don't make low hanging fruit errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> I actually screw up all the time ;) But I rather make eventual
>>>>> mistakes than not do something :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyways... lets keep the pull requests as a tool. For instance I just
>>>>> prevented an issue because of a PR Build
>>>>>
>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/ActiveMQ-Artemis-PR-Build/418/
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/22
>>>>>
>>>>> But I don't want to talk about the issue itself on this Thread... This
>>>>> is a meta discussion.. I will talk about the issue itself on another
>>>>> post I'm about to make
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>


Mime
View raw message