cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sebastien Goasguen <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] git workflow
Date Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:09:05 GMT
I would like to re-start this discussion.

Rajani made some good points and someone mentioned Gitflow:

Thinking about our release procedure, we clearly need more tests and a CI. However it looks
like this is going to take some time.

In the meantime I think there is nothing preventing us from agreeing to 'git practices', we
don't need tests or new infra, we just need to agree on the git workflow.

Right now Master is really a development branch, we should make it a stable branch for production
with very few commits.
This does not mean that we would release less, in contrary this would ensure that a commit
to master means it's a production release.

In addition gitflow [1] does not do cherry-picks (gets back to Rajani's point) everything
is based on merges.

I am of the opinion that git flow provides a nice process. It basically freezes master. Development
happens in a 'develop' branch, releases branches are branched off of that and merged into
master and back into develop….etc

Please read [1] it's a good read.

And let's discuss,



On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:58 PM, Rajani Karuturi <> wrote:

> There is also the problem of cherry-picking.
> As a contributor, I always endup creating multiple patches for each branch as they don’t
cleanly apply on the upward branches. which means distinct commits for each branch and I don’t
easily know which all branches my commit exists unless I do grep.
> if we follow merging strategy properly, apart from the first merge of the branch, everything
else on top of it should be a painless merge. 
> ~Rajani
> On 02-Jun-2014, at 10:51 pm, Marcus <> wrote:
>> I think many of the bullet points are what we are currently doing
>> (guidelines for commit comments, feature branches need to stay in sync with
>> master, no back-merging). I also think that much of what we do now is done
>> the way it is simply because there *are* vast changes between versions.
>> Classes are getting shuffled around and changed all the time. If its
>> feasible to merge branch fixes to master, that's fine, but some quick tests
>> seem to indicate that this will be messy getting started.
>> That leaves us with how we do releases. I'm fine with having single
>> branches for major releases(4.3) and tagging the commits where each
>> incremental release (4.3.x) is done. I'm trying to remember why we went
>> with the -forward, I'm sure it's in the mailing list somewhere, but one of
>> the nice things it provides is the ability for the release manager to
>> control what changes are made during code freeze while giving people a
>> place to stage fixes (though admittedly this is not always followed).
>> Without -forward, would the flow be for each dev to have their own repo and
>> issue pull requests for bugfixes?
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:17 AM, Rajani Karuturi <>
>> wrote:
>>> Any other suggestions/objections/comments??
>>> Can we discuss this in detail and agree to a process??
>>> ~Rajani
>>> On 02-Jun-2014, at 9:32 am, Rajani Karuturi <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Yes as mike said, if its a one-off case we can do a empty merge(merge -s
>>> ours) for it and git will assume its merged but will not bring in any
>>> changes.
>>>> If the branches diverged a lot, for example after a major rewrite, we
>>> could stop merging to that branch and above and make the fix manually.
>>>> ~Rajani
>>>> On 30-May-2014, at 11:26 pm, Mike Tutkowski <
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Yep, that's what I was referring to in that a particular fix for an old
>>>>> release may not apply to newer versions. That does happen.
>>>>> We used to mark those as "don't need to merge to branch x" in SVN and
>>> then
>>>>> you handed it however made sense on the applicable branch(es).
>>>>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Stephen Turner <
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> What happens if a fix isn't relevant for newer versions, or has to
>>>>>> rewritten for newer versions because the code has changed? Don't
>>>>>> branches diverge and you end up cherry-picking after that?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Stephen Turner
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Mike Tutkowski []
>>>>>> Sent: 30 May 2014 18:48
>>>>>> To:
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] git workflow
>>>>>> I think this flow is something we should seriously consider.
>>>>>> I find cherry picking from branch to branch to be error prone in
>>> it's
>>>>>> easy for someone to forget to cherry pick to all applicable branches
>>> and
>>>>>> you don't have any easy way to see the cherry picks are related.
>>>>>> When I worked at HP, we had automated tools check to see if you
>>> checked a
>>>>>> fix into a prior release, but not later releases. In such a situation,
>>> you
>>>>>> either 1) forgot to perform the check-in or 2) the check-in was no
>>> longer
>>>>>> applicable in the later release(s), so you needed to mark it as
>>>>>> un-necessary (SVN supported this ability...not sure about Git).
>>>>>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Rajani Karuturi <
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> Our current git workflow is confusing with the *forward branches
>>>>>>> cherry-picking. Its hard to track on what all releases the commit
>>>>>>> gone into unless I do some git log greping. Also, as a contributor,
>>>>>>> endup creating patches for each branch as it doesn’t cleanly
apply on
>>>>>>> different branches.
>>>>>>> I think we should have some guidelines. Here is what I propose.
>>>>>>> 1.  There should be branch for every major release(ex: 4.3.x,
>>>>>>> 5.0.x,5.1.x) and the minor releases should be tagged accordingly
>>>>>>> the respective branches.
>>>>>>> 2.  The branch naming convention is to be followed. Many branches
>>>>>>> with 4.3, 4.3.0, 4.3.1 etc. is confusing
>>>>>>> 3.  Cherry-picking should be avoided. In git, when we cherry-pick,
>>>>>>> we have two physically distinct commits for the same change or
fix and
>>>>>>> is difficult to track unless you do cherry-pick -x
>>>>>>> 4.  There should always be a continous flow from release branches
>>>>>>> master. This doesn’t mean cherry-picking. They should be merged(either
>>>>>>> ff or no-ff) which retains the commit ids and easily trackable
>>>>>>> git branch --contains
>>>>>>>  *   Every bug fix should always flow from minimal release uptill
>>>>>>> master. A bug isnt fixed until the fix reaches master.
>>>>>>>  *   For ex. A bug 4.2.1 should be committed to
>>>>>>> 4.2.x->4.3.x->4.4.x->master
>>>>>>>  *   If someone forgets to do the merge, the next time a new
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> done this will also get merged.
>>>>>>> 5.  There should always be a continuous flow from master to feature
>>>>>>> branches. Meaning all feature branch owners should proactively
>>>>>>> any new commits from master by doing a merge from master
>>>>>>> 6.  The commits from feature branch will make to master on code
>>>>>>> complete through a merge.
>>>>>>> 7.  There should never be a merge from master to release branches
>>>>>>> 8.  Every commit in LTS branch(targetted to any minor release)
>>>>>>> should have atleast bug id and correct author information
>>>>>>>  *   Cassandra's template: patch by <author>; reviewed
>>> <committer>
>>>>>>> for CASSANDRA-<ticket>
>>>>>>> 9.  Once the release branch is created(after code freeze), any
>>>>>>> in jira can be marked with fix version current release(4.4) only
>>>>>>> RM's approval and only they can go to the release branch.  This
can be
>>>>>>> done through jira and with certain rules.(may be using jira vote?)
>>>>>>> this would save the cherry-picking time and another branch
>>> maintenance.
>>>>>>> Please add your thoughts/suggestions/comments.
>>>>>>> Ref:
>>>>>>> ~Rajani
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>>>>> e:
>>>>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>>>>>> <>*™*
>>>>> --
>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>>>> e:
>>>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud
>>>>> <>*™*

View raw message