Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3380618AE8 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 15:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 25083 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2015 15:45:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 25023 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2015 15:45:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 25011 invoked by uid 99); 8 Jun 2015 15:45:10 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:45:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,URIBL_DBL_ABUSE_REDIR X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of thiagokronig@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.194 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.213.194] (HELO mail-ig0-f194.google.com) (209.85.213.194) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:42:56 +0000 Received: by igdj8 with SMTP id j8so4952949igd.0 for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:44:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=V5TJ89UXkbATwvH7jfj824nxm3yVoYa1LLozaqfmkjo=; b=Cj43nQWGDU/aeUWTLGIe5Z95Ze3SzG4w86DufJVZi2fBgF/Yv1RVV/lEJurYxwCj2g SbwH8iC/jN3xURq+BQHOktaDsrA4tJY+z60LMoaQ6Wr1j91aPMnIxUz/jvcZZFWfKUXF heHi/Xxe2mxVXzB5o6Cw4bZihdefGvsBqKDir2HoANP8ikKpqHfNAjc/M9CftlFvpcuB d0IG7Gpn7XSsiXlmdmzHW4vMJ14+IOyaeBf8ZvvviGhz7cKmUSlUOkC8JoGPnDs918/g VQY3fL0fLTPkMDy71FUgxoTredngaEjR1X+btUYsoO0ArL4XN30sAYtUJVsT9Ljy6jng +idw== X-Received: by 10.50.39.105 with SMTP id o9mr14253545igk.39.1433778284173; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:44:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1811551184.15128779.1433770531217.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <6DAB46EB-91E0-45AE-AA4D-DBC7D4466794@apache.org> <55759F78.9070400@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <55759F78.9070400@redhat.com> From: Thiago Kronig Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 15:44:33 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Git workflow for committers To: dev@activemq.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdca06c509f720518038500 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7bdca06c509f720518038500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Regarding git flow, I think it inserts layers of indirection only useful to projects with some degree of concurrent development. At the current pace of Artemis, having a master as a development branch and cooking up issues/fixes on feature-branches should suffice. Github flow: always branch from master, propose a PR, after peer review, if it is minor, merge it to master, if it is not, either bump the version up and merge it or reserve it for a future release. PRs can be made of multiple commits if it facilitates our understanding, and should be merged with --no-ff, to avoid rebase mistakes. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:59 AM Martyn Taylor wrote: > Similar to other comments here. > > My preference to use Git Hub work flow for all. A consistent work flow > across board keeps everyone on the same page. I also feel that peer > reviews are important part of the work flow. It helps prevent mistakes > and keeps the code base in good shape. > > On 08/06/15 14:41, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> On Jun 8, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Justin Bertram wrote= : > >> > >> We recently published a Hacking Guide that outlines the typical > development cycle: > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/docs/hacking-guide= /en/code.md#typical-development-cycle > >> > >> Improvements are certainly welcome. > > I think this is ok for workflow for non-committers. Nice to have that > documented. Committers should not have to go through github. > > > > In particular: step 4 can just be push your branch to a new branch at > Apache. There isn=E2=80=99t a need for github for that > > Step 5: if you push to Apache in step 4, all the commits would be on > the Apache commits list and would be fine for discussion from there. > > Step 7: if you are a committer, just push it to master. There is no > need for the pull requests from github. > > > > > > Dan > > > > > >> > >> Justin > >> > >> P.S. I already sent a PR to get the references to the old JIRA repo > (i.e. ACTIVEMQ6) updated to the new one (i.e. ARTEMIS). > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Bruce Snyder" > >> To: dev@activemq.apache.org > >> Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 2:10:14 PM > >> Subject: Git workflow for committers > >> > >> New committer Marc Sch=C3=B6chlin has raised some questions about the = git > >> workflow to use as he continues to work on the init scripts. This is a > >> perfect opportunity for all committers to discuss the workflow that we > >> recommend be used when working on ActiveMQ projects and I will documen= t > the > >> end result on the wiki in association with the 'How To Become a > >> Committer...' page. > >> > >> After many years of experience with git, I am a big fan of git flow ( > >> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/) but I don't > >> believe that is being used on ActiveMQ. So what is the general git > workflow > >> that committers use today? > >> > >> Bruce > >> > >> -- > >> perl -e 'print > >> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=3D6-E+G-N>61E >> > >> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > >> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/ > >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > > --047d7bdca06c509f720518038500--