lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bdelacre...@apache.org>
Subject [RT] working with patches vs. branches?
Date Fri, 17 Nov 2006 10:23:47 GMT
Hi Solr team,

Before I start committing stuff all over the place (just kidding), I
have a question about the team's way of working.

Feel free to point me to previous discussions if I missed something -
as a rookie committer here, I don't want to step on anyone's
toes...but the question has been on my mind for a while.

IIUC the agreed way of working is to do all important changes as
patches in Jira, discuss them and only commit once we agree on them?

If this is the case (and I agree with the idea of having a stable
trunk at all times), I'd like to suggest working with SVN branches
instead - or in addition to this.

IMHO, the problem with patches is that they tend to be one-man shows:
patching someone's patch is not convenient, so others tend to just
comment on them.

With SVN branches, several people can go wild in a branch, fixing or
improving other's stuff at will while it's being worked on. This
includes non-committers, who can provide patches against the branches
and get involved on experimental stuff as well. And if a branch takes
some time to complete, merging can occur in both directions (branch ->
trunk or trunk -> branch) to keep things in sync easily.

I don't mean to avoid the use of Jira, quite the contrary: branches
could be named after the Jira issues that they refer to, I think it's
very important to keep the history of decisions and discussions in
Jira. But collaborating on *code* in Jira is suboptimal, IMHO.

WDYT?

--Bertrand

Mime
View raw message