cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: too long to package a release?
Date Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:43:36 GMT
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
> > From my understanding of git, there's nothing special about the master
> > branch, except that it's what gets checked out when someone doesn't
> > explicitly say which branch they want.
> >
> > Joe pointed out that sometimes random people check out the code and
> expect
> > it to be stable.
> > Gord pointed out that people tend to submit pull requests assuming that
> > master == dev branch.
> >
> > I think choosing between these two data points, I'd lean towards having
> > people submit more useful pull requests.
> >
> Well put, agreed.
>
>
> >
> > I don't think either option affects how you'd go about doing a point
> > release. You would:
> > 1. Check out the relevant release tag (e.g. 2.3.0)
> > 2. Give the branch a name (e.g. branch_2.3.1)
> >
> I'm not sure why you would name the branch after checkout?  Wouldn't you
> name it by tagging after doing the merges in step 3?
>

When I check out one of our current tags, my branch is "(no branch)". I
suggest giving it a name right away so that you are able to switch to it
again.
$ git checkout 2.2.0
Note: checking out '2.2.0'.

You are in 'detached HEAD' state. You can look around, make experimental
changes and commit them, and you can discard any commits you make in this
state without impacting any branches by performing another checkout.

If you want to create a new branch to retain commits you create, you may
do so (now or later) by using -b with the checkout command again. Example:

  git checkout -b new_branch_name

HEAD is now at 02b91c5... Version 2.2.0


>
>
> > 3. Merge in all of the changes that you want to put in the point release
> > (ideally, these would already be committed in the dev branch, be it
> "next"
> > or "master").
> > 4. Tag the release.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Gord Tanner <gtanner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Also a problem we have encountered with using a 'next' branch for
> active
> > > development is from third party commits.
> > >
> > > Every single 3rd party pull request is going to come into master.
> > >
> > > You can ether:
> > > 1. tell them to redo it on next
> > > 2. rebase it into next for them and let them know for next time.
> > >
> > > The cost of option 2 gets more the longer it takes to release.  A 3rd
> > party
> > > pull request coming in could be based on code that is 2+ months old.
> > >
> > > This isn't a vote against a development branch, but a small annoyance
> we
> > > have run into.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Gord Tanner <gtanner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > A hot fix is usually branched off of master, tested, merged and
> > released.
> > > >
> > > > We then rebase / merge the hotfix up into next.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Also: while I personally prefer master to be the dev channel, I will
> > say
> > > >> that I do like Gord's suggestion of how its done in ripple in that
> the
> > > >> name
> > > >> of the dev branch is 'next' and not '2.3.0' so that your dev setup
> > > doesn't
> > > >> need to change every month.
> > > >>
> > > >> Gord: how do you deal with bugfixes/point releases?  Do you fix in
> > > feature
> > > >> branch, merge into next, and then cherry-pick/merge just that fix
> into
> > > >> master before doing a major release?  Or, do you just offer bugfixes
> > via
> > > >> 'next'?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > I don't have much weight here, but personally I feel that this
> seems
> > > >> > backwards.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > With this proposal (if I understand it), when you do a fresh
> > checkout
> > > of
> > > >> > the codebase, instead of sitting on the bleeding edge, you would
> be
> > > >> sitting
> > > >> > at a "stable" release which is conceptually read-only for most
> > > >> contributors
> > > >> > (writes happen in the form of batch "releases" which itself would
> > just
> > > >> be
> > > >> > some git-fu to rebase master).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I am happy enough to have features be worked on in branches etc,
I
> > > just
> > > >> > think that it should be flipped and the stable release be the
> branch
> > > and
> > > >> > dev to be on master.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > As a separate issue, I would suggest not using branches to "name"
> > > point
> > > >> > releases, but just tag them.  If you have a 2.3.0 release, and
you
> > > need
> > > >> to
> > > >> > fix a bug in 2.3.1, those should not become two logically separate
> > > code
> > > >> > branches with independent dev, but rather they are a logically
> > single
> > > >> > timeline with many names for each historically significant commit,
> > > >> right?
> > > >> >  Thats what tags are for (
> > > http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Basics-Tagging
> > > >> ).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -Michal
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Gord Tanner <gtanner@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> This is what we have done in ripple (and webworks)
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> master - always stable current shipping code
> > > >> >> next - always 'stable' next release. Expectation that code
has
> been
> > > >> tested
> > > >> >> / run before merged into this branch.
> > > >> >> feature branches - branched off of next and merged into next
when
> > > >> stable /
> > > >> >> done. Not expected to be stable or runnable until merge time.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Am I correct when I say that, with this approach, master
> becomes
> > a
> > > >> >> series
> > > >> >> > of merge commits coming from dev, then ?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > A couple questions to follow up:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > - "features get forked from stable" - forked from master,
yes?
> > > >> >> > - "features, when ready, tested against dev branch"
- what does
> > > this
> > > >> >> mean?
> > > >> >> > Does this mean, you would merge feature branch into
dev branch
> > > >> (locally)
> > > >> >> > then run tests to make sure things work?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On 1/2/13 11:19 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bowserj@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > >OK, Let's rethink this:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >After talking with Brian on the 21st, I think we
agree on
> this:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > * Master remains stable and sits at the most recent
released
> > code
> > > >> >> > >(i.e. 2.3.0 once we get 2.3.0 done) (Stable Channel)
> > > >> >> > > * Dev happens on branches for the releases (i.e.
2.4.0) (Dev
> > > >> Channel)
> > > >> >> > > * In the case of a point release, dev happens in
the branch
> of
> > > the
> > > >> >> > >major release (i.e. 2.3.1 would happen in the 2.3.0
branch,
> not
> > > >> >> > >master) (Testing Channel)
> > > >> >> > > * Features get forked on stable then once the feature
is
> ready,
> > > >> >> > >tested against the dev branch.  If they work with
stable, they
> > > >> SHOULD
> > > >> >> > >work with 2.4.0.  If they don't, the tickets get
added to
> 2.4.0
> > to
> > > >> >> > >make it work with that release.  That way things
are more
> > > >> predictable
> > > >> >> > >as far as new features are concerned. (You will
burn your face
> > > >> >> > >channel).
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >Does that make sense? Working on master for things
causes us
> > pain
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> > >we should use git conventions to make it simpler
for people
> who
> > > >> expect
> > > >> >> > >our master to work all the time.  I don't think
this will
> speed
> > up
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > >release as much as automating tagging of RCs so
that when the
> JS
> > > is
> > > >> >> > >tagged, everything else is tagged.  The week it
takes to tag
> an
> > RC
> > > >> is
> > > >> >> > >way too long.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >> > >> Bumping this thread. I'd like Joe to clarify
as well.
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >> On 12/20/12 12:26 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b@brian.io>
wrote:
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> > >>>Ok, I want to understand this, let me take
a stab.
> > > >> >> > >>>
> > > >> >> > >>>You describe three long-lived branches like
this:
> > > >> >> > >>>
> > > >> >> > >>>- Master: This is stable and frozen on the
last tagged
> > release.
> > > >> >> > >>>- Dev: the next release to be tagged. Feature
branches
> merged
> > > from
> > > >> >> > >>>master when confident.
> > > >> >> > >>>- Unstable: the current working branch for
a particular tag.
> > > >> Feature
> > > >> >> > >>>branches merged as needed for collaboration.
> > > >> >> > >>>
> > > >> >> > >>>Everyone works from local feature branch
rebasing and
> > committing
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> > >>>master. When that feature branch is considered
good enough,
> it
> > > is
> > > >> >> > >>>merged into dev, and work continues. Whatever
date we happen
> > to
> > > >> pick
> > > >> >> > >>>for a release that is what dev becomes,
we tag, and move
> that
> > > sha
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> > >>>stable if its not an RC.
> > > >> >> > >>>
> > > >> >> > >>>?
> > > >> >> > >>>
> > > >> >> > >>>
> > > >> >> > >>>
> > > >> >> > >>>
> > > >> >> > >>>On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Joe Bowser
<
> > bowserj@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >>>> I'm OK with this, but I think your
example is off:
> > > >> >> > >>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>> Where n is the current released piece
of the software:
> > > >> >> > >>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>> n.x.x = Stable
> > > >> >> > >>>> n+1.x.x = Dev
> > > >> >> > >>>> master = Unstable, can have things
merged in from feature
> > > >> branches
> > > >> >> > >>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>> This fully uncouples features from
release planning, which
> > is
> > > >> good
> > > >> >> > >>>> because it means the release will land
in the version when
> > > it's
> > > >> >> ready,
> > > >> >> > >>>> and not for any other reason.  I also
propose that we keep
> > > using
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > >>>> same RC tags and that for a final release
we tag it
> > > x.x.xFinal.
> > > >>  We
> > > >> >> > >>>> still need to tag an RC and re-tag
it.
> > > >> >> > >>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>> Release Process:
> > > >> >> > >>>> 1. Tag the dev tree
> > > >> >> > >>>> 2. merge the dev tree back into master
> > > >> >> > >>>> 3. Create 2.5.0 branch
> > > >> >> > >>>> 4. File issues from 2.5.0 in JIRA
> > > >> >> > >>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>> I also propose that we automate the
tagging.  If an RC is
> > > >> broken,
> > > >> >> we
> > > >> >> > >>>> just cut another RC.  A lot of our
retagging is done to
> get
> > > >> around
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > >>>> pain of having to do another RC.  The
biggest part of the
> > > delay
> > > >> is
> > > >> >> > >>>> waiting for every single platform maintainer
to tag their
> > > >> platform
> > > >> >> > >>>> after the JS was tagged.  For example,
I tagged rc2 for
> the
> > JS
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> for
> > > >> >> > >>>> Android on Monday last week from my
hotel room, and the
> > > release
> > > >> >> wasn't
> > > >> >> > >>>> fully tagged until this week.  I'm
fine with RCs going up
> to
> > > 10
> > > >> as
> > > >> >> > >>>> long as we can release early, release
often and release
> when
> > > we
> > > >> >> want
> > > >> >> > >>>> to and not run out of time and have
to delay.
> > > >> >> > >>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Brian
LeRoux <
> b@brian.io>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >> > >>>>> Truth. Though lets not get hung
up on the past and just
> > focus
> > > >> on
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > >>>>> present. We've done a really good
job getting where we
> are.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>> So, Joe, are you saying you like
the idea of three long
> > lived
> > > >> >> > >>>>>branches
> > > >> >> > >>>>> and merges happen from local feature
branches?
> > > >> >> > >>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:22 AM,
Joe Bowser <
> > > >> bowserj@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>wrote:
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> We are totally doing something
wrong with the way that
> we
> > do
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>releases.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>  I personally think that we're
not using git right, and
> > > here's
> > > >> >> why:
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> Currently, when we do a release,
we tag the RC, and we
> > test
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> RC.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> There's nothing preventing
us from putting things after
> > that
> > > >> tag
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> if we don't want to those things
in the release
> branching
> > > off
> > > >> >> that
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> tag.  We've done it before
and other than the problem
> with
> > > >> CoHo,
> > > >> >> it
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> worked really well.  I propose
that instead of tagging
> the
> > > >> >> release,
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>we
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> branch when we want to do a
release, and we do all the
> bug
> > > >> fixes
> > > >> >> on
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> that branch.  Once that branch
is ready to roll, we
> merge
> > it
> > > >> back
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>into
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> master.  In fact, nobody should
be working on master
> > except
> > > >> to do
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> merges.  The way we're doing
this now feels dirty and
> > wrong.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> I honestly feel that this is
a much faster way of
> working,
> > > and
> > > >> >> that
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> we're missing the point if
we have to tell everyone to
> > jump
> > > >> out
> > > >> >> of
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>the
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> pool every time we do an RC.
 I know that we could be
> > > working
> > > >> on
> > > >> >> our
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> branches, but that work is
almost entirely invisible to
> > the
> > > >> rest
> > > >> >> of
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> the project until it's time
to merge it back in, which
> > takes
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>forever.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:07
AM, Michal Mocny <
> > > >> >> mmocny@chromium.org
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>wrote:
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>> So there is something to
be said about having devs
> shift
> > > >> focus
> > > >> >> from
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>dev to
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>> testing during an RC. 
However, as the team grows, not
> > all
> > > >> of us
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>are
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>really
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>> being responsible for cutting
releases.  Maybe that
> means
> > > we
> > > >> >> need
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>to
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>train
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>> the entire team to change
current behavior, but that
> > > doesn't
> > > >> >> feel
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>> necessary/scalable.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>> With growing external contributions,
I would have to
> say
> > > >> that a
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>code
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>freeze
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>> on trunk doesn't seem to
make as much sense.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>> -Michal
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at
9:47 AM, Andrew Grieve
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>><agrieve@chromium.org>
wrote:
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> I definitely think
we'd get more done if we didn't
> have
> > > >> such a
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>long
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> code-freeze. I'm not
sure this is the same as what you
> > > were
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>suggesting, but
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> have a script/tool
to branch all of the platforms into
> > an
> > > rc
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>branch. Then,
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> each platform can fix
themselves up a bit and tag
> their
> > > RC.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>Meanwhile, dev
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> can continue to happen
on edge.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> My main concern with
our current approach is just that
> > the
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>code-freeze time
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> is super long.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012
at 3:36 PM, Marcel Kinard
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>><cmarcelk@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>wrote:
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > One of the things
that strikes me here is the
> > difference
> > > >> >> between
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>calendar
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > time and effort
time. (This assumes folks already
> > > >> concurred
> > > >> >> that
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>the rc
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> is
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > ready to release.)
Based on my reading of
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>http://wiki.apache.org/**
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > cordova/CuttingReleases
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>><http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CuttingReleases>there
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> isn't a lot of effort
time involved to cut a release.
> It
> > > >> seems
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>like
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>a
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > good chunk of
the calendar time is getting folks to
> > tag
> > > >> their
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>platform.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > Ideally the promotion
from rc to final should take
> > very
> > > >> >> little
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>effort
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> time.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> >
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > What I like about
the rc is that it provides a
> > settling
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>mechanism
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>for the
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > churn to calm
down, run tests across more
> integration,
> > > and
> > > >> >> see
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>the bigger
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > picture to assess
release readiness. I would expect
> > that
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>promotion
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> from
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > edge to rc should
take a decent amount of effort
> time,
> > > but
> > > >> >> not
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>because of
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > the "cut" activities.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> >
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > So when we are
at rc and don't find any surprises,
> why
> > > >> does
> > > >> >> it
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>take a
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> week
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > to promote to
final? If we spend a week in rc1,
> > another
> > > >> week
> > > >> >> in
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>rc2, and
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > another week to
cut final, that leaves only 1 week
> in
> > a
> > > >> >> 4-week
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>cycle for
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > active dev work?
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> >
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > I like the ideal
of a channel/stream/branch/whatever
> > > where
> > > >> >> there
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>is a
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > place for the
rc to settle without necessarily
> > blocking
> > > >> >> commits
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>to edge.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > Where I'm going
with this is that if there is an
> area
> > > >> where
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>commits to
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > rc are carefully
controlled, then perhaps one person
> > > (i.e,
> > > >> >> Steve
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>G) could
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > cut the release
for ALL platforms using scripts.
> This
> > > may
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>involve
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>that
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> one
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > person tagging/branching/whatever
across multiple
> > > >> platforms.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> >
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > I also like putting
the "how to cut" magic in each
> > > >> platform.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>Then
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>perhaps
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > a good chunk of
coho is tests to make sure that the
> > > >> platform
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>magic
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > delivered the
correct format to it.
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> >
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> > -- Marcel Kinard
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>> >
> > > >> >> > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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