couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: branching in couchdb
Date Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:23:18 GMT
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org> wrote:
> No objection from me, Jan.  I don't see the need for a dedicated "develop" branch at
the moment, but then I've not worked intensively on a project which had one.
>
> Adam

I think the intention there is if you have a sufficiently large test
suite that accurately represents reality. Thus when you're landing
features in quick succession you have a place to test the combination
before they "go live". I'm not sure we really have that (also
considering that we run our test suite locally and don't rely on a
central CI server).

>
> On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 13:21 , Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For my part, I was pretty content with the scheme we agreed to in Dublin
>>> (<jira>-<shortdesc>).
>>>
>>> I would like to discuss the old branches that don't follow any scheme at
>>> all, is it time we deleted those?
>>>
>>> For going forward, I think every jira-shortdesc branch lives forever. 'git
>>> branch --no-merged master' will show all the branches we haven't merged in,
>>> and I advocate that as our mechanism for figuring out which branches are
>>> dead, rather than removing the sometimes-useful history of a ticket.
>>
>> That sounds sane to me.
>>
>> It seems to me the the enhanced branching model tries to do two things:
>>
>> 1. Allow fast and lose merging of a bigger number of feature branches
>>   to make fast deployment and CI easier and non-blocking.
>> 2. Establish a naming convention for branches of different types
>>   (hotfix, feature etc.)
>>
>> Please correct me if I am missing something.
>>
>> For the moment I don't see that we have too many concurrent feature
>> branches in CouchDB. So for the time being, I think we are okay with
>> treating the release branches as the “develop” branches.
>>
>> I think it will become obvious when that is going to be no longer
>> sufficient and I would totally support starting to use the develop-
>> branch method as soon as we hit any issues with the currently
>> described setup.
>>
>>
>> As for 2. we tag our branch names with the JIRA number which gives
>> us the branch-type as well. So technically the information is one
>> lookup away, but I wouldn’t mind changing our branches to
>> jiranumber-feature-name-of-the-feature
>>
>> E.g. 431-feature-cors, or 1500-bugfix-ibrowse-inbox-overflow
>>
>> * * *
>>
>>
>> If nobody objects*, I'd sum this up two action items:
>>
>> 1. update our wiki to name branches jiranumber-feature-name
>>    instead of just jiranumber-name. (Jan)
>>
>> 2. observe our branch/merge procedure closely to see whether
>>    we should have a dedicated “develop”-branch. If we do,
>>    switch to that model. (All)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jan
>> --
>> * as per ASF Lazy Consensus. (http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus)
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 October 2012 09:16, Dave Cottlehuber <dch@jsonified.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31 October 2012 09:07, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hello guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> II would like to discuss a little about our branch naming. Today we have
>>>>> conflicting docs somehow:
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Source%20Code%20Repository%20Organization
>>>>>
>>>>> - http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/ContributorWorkflow
>>>>>
>>>>> and one another I don't find on the wiki now (without my bookmarks)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we can make a one page describing the branching workflow and such
?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also my understanding now is that branch should be named by
>>>>> <TicketNumber>_<shortdescr>
>>>>>
>>>>> which sound good.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to introduce another level to help us when we have to look
>>>> on
>>>>> different branches. This is mainly based on that doc :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://nxvl.blogspot.fr/2012/07/a-continous-delivery-git-branching-model.html
>>>>>
>>>>> and it could help for continuous integration when we will have it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In short :
>>>>>
>>>>> - a develop branch where all patches should land before to go in master.
>>>>> This branch can be used for final review and make sure it doesn't break
>>>>> anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> - a `fix/<TicketNumber>_<shortdescr>`  for changes fixing
a bug
>>>>> - a `feature/<TicketNumber>_<shortdescr>` for new features
>>>>> - usual X.X.x branch for releases (those we could name them /release/X.X.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> - benoît
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t4yLz-et74A/UBIES98QPmI/AAAAAAAADGY/S5lwne9xpcM/s1600/releaseFlow.png
>>>>
>>>> seems very similar to the OTP approach as well.
>>>>
>>>> Just tell me what I need to do :-)
>>>>
>>>> A+D
>>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message