commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [math] Repository Policy (was: Reverting changes on "master" as per Commons Math policy)
Date Tue, 31 May 2016 14:21:22 GMT
Why not just rename master to something like stable, then rename develop to
master? Less confusing to people who don't know about git-flow.

On 31 May 2016 at 03:58, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 31 May 2016 09:34:25 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
>> Le 31/05/2016 à 03:37, erans@apache.org a écrit :
>>
>>> Repository: commons-math
>>> Updated Branches:
>>>   refs/heads/master ffc1caada -> 598edc127
>>>
>>>
>>> Reverting changes on "master" as per Commons Math policy.
>>>
>>> The corresponding changes have been ported into branch "develop".
>>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The repository policy for [math] is a bit confusing in my opinion.
>>
>
> It causes confusion indeed but not because it is confusing.
> Rather because of years of svn usage which git vows to change IIUC.
>
> People are used to work on the master/trunk branch,
>>
>
> This is a wrong expectation for git workflow.
> For anything (except perhaps trivial changes), people are expected
> to work on a dedicated branch.
> Cf. rationale in the document here:
>   http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>
> Discussion (and agreement) here:
>   http://markmail.org/message/7lnus64entdwj4vo
>
> and if we want to
>> make the collaboration on our components as easy as possible I think we
>> should stick to the common expectation. Otherwise contributors sending
>> pull requests from GitHub are likely to base their work against the
>> wrong branch, inducing extra work for the committers to rebase the
>> changes against the real development trunk. Also I think it would be
>> preferable for all Apache Commons components to follow the same
>> repository layout.
>>
>> Having a stable branch isn't a bad idea (I've never felt the need for it
>> on my projects though, and this adds some steps to the release process
>> that we vowed to simplify), but this can be achieved with a separate
>> 'releases' branch.
>>
>> So for Commons Math I'd suggest renaming the branches as follow:
>>   master  -> releases (or just drop it)
>>   develop -> master
>>
>
> I agree that a workflow that includes Github must be clarified.
> An issue was opened:
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-1357
>
> Unfortunately I'm not familiar with Github in order to figure out
> the right way to interface its expectations (e.g. Do all projects
> exported to Github use only one branch?) with our new development
> model (that requires creating a "feature branch" for each feature
> rather than modify "master" or "develop" directly).
>
> This especially true for one-off contributors: we _don't_ want
> "master" to be modified by code of yet unknown quality.
>
> Regards,
> Gilles
>
>
>
>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>

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