mahout-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pat Ferrel <>
Subject Re: Proposal for changing Mahout's Git branching rules
Date Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:47:05 GMT
Which translates into exactly what you suggest if we are maintaining release branches.

On Jun 22, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Pat Ferrel <> wrote:

Actually I think git flow would merge it into master and tag it with an annotated tag like
“0.13.0.jira-123” to reference the bug fix or some other naming scheme. Since the bug
is “important” it is treated like what the blog post calls a “hotfix” so the head
of master is still stable with hotfixes applied even if the merge does not warrant a binary

The master branch hygiene is maintained by checking WIP into develop or a feature branch,
hotfixes and releases go into master. There is also a mechanism to maintain release branches
if the project warrants, which may be true of Mahout.

On Jun 21, 2017, at 3:25 PM, Trevor Grant <> wrote:

So right now, if there was a bug in 0.13.0 that needed an important patch-
why not just merge it into master and  git branch "branch-0.13.0"

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <> wrote:

> PS. but i see the rational. to have stable fixes to get into release.
> perhaps named release branches is still a way to go if one cuts them early
> enough.
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Pat Ferrel <>
> wrote:
>> Since merges are done by committers, it’s easy to retarget a
> contributor’s
>>> PRs but committers would PR against develop,
>> IMO it is anything but easy to resolve conflicts, let alone somebody
>> else's. Spark just asks me to resolve them myself. But if you don't have
>> proper target, you can't ask the contributor.
>> and some projects like PredictionIO make develop the default branch on
>>> github so it's the one contributors get by default.
>> That would fix it but i am not sure if we have access to HEAD on github
>> mirror. Might involve INFRA to do it  And in that case  it would amount
>> little more but renaming. It would seem it is much easier to create a
>> branch, "stable master" or something, and consider master to be ongoing
> PR
>> base.
>> -1 on former, -0 on the latter. Judging from the point of both
> contributor
>> and committer (of which I am both).it will not make my life easy on
> either
>> end.

View raw message