Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bchesneau@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.223.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B8D20B04-5785-4E1B-81B2-6D1A77CF3F3B@apache.org>
References: 
 <CAJNb-9p9YxLT82vE01Gj7nO2+HLRCNveU3tP0MvXQs9KpJuA8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL+Y1nuVEZE+o8mh2hoiDZ1xqYm1QOYxToYwmZkuu2AwZNKnwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABvT1DGCh9JYYEhTp6AnLNRcVe6mtBcV3=rLYndo8p+m3b57fg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DEC04DB0-172C-4517-8554-2BE049A2F606@apache.org>
	<7D76050A-3095-46A3-81EA-2DB30E78E263@apache.org>
	<CAJ_m3YC3Uyt5bZodgtTPViB099XE9bM9TXwk2UuDCXGuB4pF7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<87B791B0-2812-41FB-A91B-E005EB785D9B@apache.org>
	<CAJNb-9pHGcDRdxWZQREgTA-SOHDfC2nUq74t-rnBHUDOMfb=ZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<B8D20B04-5785-4E1B-81B2-6D1A77CF3F3B@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:15:21 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAJNb-9opo0ys7AsHCKrpxqPtiLtmaigm5LFqhwEvbibZnSv3Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: branching in couchdb
From: Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04446969af83af04cd68f14d

--f46d04446969af83af04cd68f14d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

So I didn't realize we settled on Ticket-{feature,fix}_coolname here (hence
my git spam this morning) . Imo this naming is awkward and miss the initial
goal. ie make it easy to parse even for humans.

Today this isn't a problem we have not so many branch. But in near future I
expect more activity on the repo and it will become important. It will be
hard to rename it after than deciding today on a good naming. Imo we should
really think a little more on that. Beeing relaxed is fine, but to be
honest I am generally more relax when I know  that things in the future
won't be a problem.


- benoit


On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:

>
> On Oct 31, 2012, at 16:39 , Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Oct 31, 2012, at 16:23 , Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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).
> >>
> >> Good summary!
> >>
> >> I think we want to be working towards that, but yeah, we are not
> >> really there yet, and we don't have many concurrent features and
> >> fixes going on.
> >>
> >> But again, I am happy to reconsider this, when we run into issues
> >> with the current setup.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Jan
> >> --
> >>
> >> I'm not sure it will help when we will have n branches. Also I think we
> > should have more test and c-i. The current situation is not that good and
> > we spoke about it at the boston summit.
>
> Fully agreed!
>
> > Anyway if we stay with the current situation yes having one referent doc
> > would be good.
>
> I updated http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Merge_Procedure.
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>
>
>
>

--f46d04446969af83af04cd68f14d--