asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Maxon <>
Subject Re: Branching master
Date Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:03:06 GMT
Gerrit can totally handle more than one branch. Having a branch in the
ASF repo, likewise, is a near zero overhead operation.
I've had similar thoughts about this, and I know it's not without
precedent, so the idea is definitely +1 from me.

  I think the only sticky part could possibly be merge vs. rebase.
Imagine if a change needs to be picked from the master to release
branch, but not some of its predecessor commits. The commit itself
would have to change despite having (likely/hopefully) semantically
equivalent content, and I think that could get very messy (similar
issue to the squashed feature branch discussion).


On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Till Westmann <> wrote:
> I think that a release-branch sounds like a good idea. The question is, how
> we manage the code/review flow. To be able to review the changes the should
> go into the release in the usual way, I think that we’d need to have Gerrit
> know about more than one branch. Not sure how easy/difficult that is. Also,
> the release branch obviously would need to be in the ASF git repo.
> How much effort do you think this would be (infrastructure-wise)?
> Cheers,
> Till
> On 27 Sep 2015, at 23:31, Chris Hillery wrote:
>> There are a lot of changes that are stacking up in Asterix because we're
>> trying to get a release done. I'm thinking it might be a good exercise and
>> preparation for next time if we branched Asterix master for the release
>> and
>> started allowing changes to be merged that are for post-release, instead
>> of
>> basically having a code freeze which has been going on for, what, several
>> months already?
>> We could either create a release branch off master and do the necessary
>> release cleanup over there, or else create a "develop" branch from master
>> and start committing new changes there. Branching a release branch off
>> master probably would require fewer changes to our existing
>> infrastructure.
>> Either way, once the release was complete, we'd merge the branch back onto
>> master and continue.
>> Anyone say yay or nay?
>> Ceej

View raw message