Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of agrieve@google.com designates
 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: agrieve@google.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADVgkyMtbYhhpjLkEHv=ru3LiWp0TrrZ1HnbR9cKnzr4o+1aLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADVgkyMZmhcc8RbLNyNXi3cJ9iM=h9ScvU2ZnET3X4q9L95V1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD19BDD4.158A2%fil@adobe.com>
 <CABiQX1WbsVx9W5DaxN-77_x5RAOHSodnsiRPxURzCgQLqMjXCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADVgkyMtbYhhpjLkEHv=ru3LiWp0TrrZ1HnbR9cKnzr4o+1aLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:18:02 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CABiQX1UC+U9EkzS8U1mcnZAeNKfLz6iVe+ixW72EUXw=5EhBqg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: too long to package a release?
To: dev <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93b567af3230504d3470558

--14dae93b567af3230504d3470558
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Could you elaborate on what the workflow would be if we merged only from
Feature branches?

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:

> So, what if Canonical branches only received merges from Feature
> branches...?
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >But do Canonical branches merge into each other? I'm thinking no.
> >>
> >> My understanding:
> >>
> >> - work goes into feature branches
> >> - when contributor(s) deem feature is ready, merge into Unstable, which
> >> then gets vetted (test!!!!!)
> >> - at some point unstable merges into Next
> >> - when tagging, we merge Next into Stable and tag
> >>
> >
> > That's my understanding as well.
> >
> > The "At some point" part would be when we say "hey, let's start working
> on
> > cutting a release", which should align with the wiki's
> > RoadMap<http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/RoadmapProjects> (which
> > targeted 2.3 for November, whoops!).
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Would be different for bug fixes or other maintenance-type commits too,
> >> ya? Those would be directly into Next.
> >>
> > It might cause headaches to commit bug-fixes into Next when it comes time
> > to merge Unstable -> Next.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Finally, what about hot fixes / patch releases? Branch off the tag in
> >> Stable and put hot patch work into there?
> >>
> > Agree. I think the flow here should be to commit change to Unstable and
> > then cherry-pick it into a branch off the tag (when feasible).
>

--14dae93b567af3230504d3470558--