drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aditya <adityakish...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Temporary branches
Date Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:45:22 GMT
We definitely need some sort of solution and using an obvious pattern for
staging branch could be one of them.

However, I see David mentioning that it is an interim solution and they
might already be evaluating options.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:40 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
> So today, we're taking an interim step of disabling non-fast-forward
> pushes and branch deletion across all of our git repos. I emphasize
> interim, as it's a stop-gap measure to get us back to the level of
> protection we've set expectations for. I know that this will be
> disruptive to many folks' way of operating in their git environment,
> so we are hoping to make this interim solution short lived. If your
> project has immediate needs that you find are blocked by this, please
> do reach out to the Infrastructure team, and we will work to make sure
> we can help with a timely workaround for those specific cases.
>

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org> wrote:

>
> > On Nov 5, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure what to do here. INFRA just changed the Git behavior so it
> is
> > no longer possible to delete branches. I generally don't like to have
> > failed branches in a release history (otherwise you get a release branch
> > with all these maven forward/backwards commits). As such, I would
> overwrite
> > candidate branches historically (dropping the failed release commits).
>
> (Moving to a new thread to as not to hijack the VOTE thread.)
>
> I am wresting with the same problem with Calcite. I wonder whether we
> should ask INFRA to treat branches called ‘temporary-…’ differently.
>
> Julian
>
>

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