Intended to be would maybe be more appropriate, and then the statement would still apply. With that being said, I'm sorry to hear that it has changed, you guys should be spanking b0rokers more, don't let them win.
Regardless of that, as said on IRC, the reason why we do trunk (master) based development is that we all run master all the time and thus test as many configurations as possible all the time. I don't see why we need a rolling-branch that is more stable (master in the gitflow terminology) than the development trunk, because we'll all just switch to develop and that's it. Andy claims that there are compelling cases. I've read some blog posts over the years about it, and I'm not convinced. -- Tom. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Mike Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> wrote: > 'Our master is already considered "stable" and in a release state, so it > really doesn't match our workflow.' > > Things have changed a bit since you've been gone, and this is not even > remotely close to being true anymore. As far as all of my use cases go > (everyday use on X, testing on Wayland, basic application functionality), > master has been completely unusable for this entire release cycle. Based on > the current workflow of write code -> commit directly to master without any > form of testing, it seems like this will continue to be the case for the > foreseeable future. > > I am in no way directing this at you personally, but for us to be basing > any decision on the above statement is, at this time, nothing more than a > false premise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise) argument. > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:39 AM Tom Hacohen <t...@stosb.com> wrote: > >> I accidentally hit send, didn't mean to. >> Here is my full reply: >> It's possible, yes, but it doesn't address my initial concerns, which >> are that edi will stick out compared to the other e projects. This >> will be considered a success by you for sure, and I don't see us >> changing the efl to follow, so it'll stay different. >> Furthermore, once you publish a tag/branch they should remain there, >> so even if we don't like it, it'll have to stay in edi or at least edi >> will be different. >> Btw, changing HEAD to be "develop" rather than "master" is a bit more >> intrusive and painful. >> >> Additionally, I just took a look at this gitflow thing, and noticed >> that it's pretty much what we do but worse (apart of the poor mistake >> that we did which is having the stable branches be named per repo >> rather than having a consistent name, that is, efl-1.7 instead of >> stable-1.17). >> We never needed a "hotfix" branch, the "release" branch has always >> proved sufficient for us (I can see the potential need, we just never >> hit it). After taking a second look, he deletes branches afterwards, >> so it's a workflow we can and already do here. >> Release branches we already have. >> We name our tags v1.17.0 compared to 1.17.0 which I think is better. >> I don't see the advantage of having a "develop" branch in addition to >> master given our workflow. Our master is already considered "stable" >> and in a release state, so it really doesn't match our workflow. >> >> So I'm not really impressed with this suggestion (and in particular >> GitFlow), and I don't think it can be done in a way that is possible >> to revert or is compatible with what we do. >> As I said, if you want to test it, test it with your own dev branches, >> show us that the workflow works and just configure your tools for this >> testing period, I don't see why the test period needs to have the >> formal names. >> >> You mentioned having tools that work with it, what exactly? >> >> As a side note, I'm OK with changing the stable release branches to >> "release-x.y" if people are OK with that, instead of the per repo >> naming, this will make it slightly more compatible for you, and >> actually makes sense regardless (was a mistake in the first place). >> >> -- >> Tom >> >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Tom Hacohen <t...@stosb.com> wrote: >> > It is possible, yes. >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:19:51 +0000 Andrew Williams < >> a...@andywilliams.me> said: >> >> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> You are absolutely right - the “show it with a smaller project and >> prove >> >>> it’s worth is exactly why I brought it up. I was in the process of >> doing so >> >>> and hit this roadblock. No intention to beat a dead horse - I actually >> >>> thought I was doing what was agreed. >> >>> >> >>> Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick. >> >> >> >> Well I think doing this with edi is fine. is it possible to have just >> edi have >> >> different branch naming schemes? i don't know. if it's not then we have >> >> problems. but i think we;re on the same page atm "try this in a smaller >> scale >> >> and show it improves things - us that to convince everyone else". :) >> >> >> >>> Andy >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 at 00:58, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:15:45 +0000 Andrew Williams < >> a...@andywilliams.me> >> >>> > said: >> >>> > >> >>> > We had this discussion before in just one place I believe until you >> asked >> >>> > for >> >>> > specific branch names to be allowed. You wanted us to change how we >> branch >> >>> > and >> >>> > work with efl/e etc. the last time. I don't remember there being >> agreement >> >>> > with >> >>> > you on needing a change as I don't see our current model being bad or >> >>> > broken >> >>> > or causing trouble (discussion already had) vs gitflow. I don't know >> why >> >>> > you're >> >>> > bringing it back up as if there wasn't a consensus already. I >> believe the >> >>> > last >> >>> > discussion was roughly: >> >>> > >> >>> > "There is no agreement that any change is needed. The change you >> propose >> >>> > does >> >>> > nothing to actually improve anything by it's proposal. It just >> shuffles >> >>> > chairs, >> >>> > BUT if you really think it's so much better, try it on smaller >> projects >> >>> > first >> >>> > and show/prove it to be worth it". >> >>> > >> >>> > Or something to that effect. Most people were just silent on the >> topic. >> >>> > >> >>> > > Hi list, >> >>> > > >> >>> > > This conversation seems to have now happened in many places and it >> seems >> >>> > > that a few key individuals don't really see why we should be >> looking at >> >>> > > different branching models. I understand that opinion but if we >> don't try >> >>> > > new things then we will never be able to engage with new process or >> >>> > > technologies so I am keen to try gitflow nonetheless. >> >>> > > >> >>> > > So at this point I would like this thread to record a definitive >> >>> > decision. >> >>> > > Will we allow reduced branch name restrictions on our git >> repositories or >> >>> > > not? >> >>> > > Thanks, >> >>> > > Andy >> >>> > > >> >>> > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 at 11:43 Andrew Williams <a...@andywilliams.me >> > >> >>> > wrote: >> >>> > > >> >>> > > > Hi TAsn, >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > Thanks for the reply. In gitflow these are the standards and >> they need >> >>> > to >> >>> > > > work across different users hence why having the developer >> namespace >> >>> > is not >> >>> > > > quite enough. Additionally the hotfix is not catered for in our >> current >> >>> > > > scheme (as I understand it). >> >>> > > > One nice thing with gitflow is the plugin that manages all the >> branches >> >>> > > > for you. If you have custom schemes then every person looking to >> take >> >>> > up >> >>> > > > development has to configure it before getting started, so the >> >>> > defaults are >> >>> > > > best if possible. >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > I appreciate that consistency is important but taken so >> stringently it >> >>> > > > means we can never try anything new... An earlier discussion on >> >>> > GitFlow led >> >>> > > > to raster saying that he would need to see it working to >> understand the >> >>> > > > value - so I would like to do just that. >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > I understand that folk don't necessarily see the value, but I >> have done >> >>> > > > and would like to try it for the projects that I am managing. >> That >> >>> > > > shouldn't be too onerous I think? Also as apps move from >> autotools to >> >>> > meson >> >>> > > > we already have a reduced consistency between projects. >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > Thanks, >> >>> > > > Andy >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 at 11:34 Tom Hacohen <t...@stosb.com> wrote: >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > >> Heya, >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> I don't quite understand what you are trying to do here. I >> mean, I >> >>> > > >> understand you are trying to have these, but what are these >> branches >> >>> > > >> for? If it's for you developing your own features why not put >> it in a >> >>> > > >> dev branch? >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> We have these enforcements because we want to enforce branch >> names to >> >>> > > >> follow a consistent pattern across the repos. I don't mind >> changing it >> >>> > > >> per se, >> >>> > > >> though: >> >>> > > >> 1. I don't really see an obvious value with gitflow. >> >>> > > >> 2. I'd prefer if it was consistent across repos. >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> Maybe people don't agree with this, but my take towards the e >> repos is >> >>> > > >> similar to that >> >>> > > >> of the GNU project. Have everything follow similar guidelines >> and be >> >>> > > >> mostly similar, >> >>> > > >> making it easier for devs to jump across projects. Yes, that >> >>> > > >> consistency sometimes >> >>> > > >> comes with a price, but I think that it's worth it. >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> Looking forward to hearing what other people think. >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> -- >> >>> > > >> Tom. >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Andrew Williams < >> >>> > a...@andywilliams.me> >> >>> > > >> wrote: >> >>> > > >> > Hi git admins, >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > I'm setting up gitflow on Edi but I can't push to origin >> because of >> >>> > the >> >>> > > >> > branch naming rules. Can you please open up the ability to >> have >> >>> > remote >> >>> > > >> > branches matching the patterns "develop", "feature/*", >> "bugfix/*", >> >>> > > >> > "release/*", "hotfix/*" and "support/*"? >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > I'd really appreciate it thanks. >> >>> > > >> > Oh and to those who worried about "changing to develop branch >> is an >> >>> > > >> extra >> >>> > > >> > step" don't fear as HEAD can be pointed to develop instead of >> >>> > master if >> >>> > > >> > that's what folk are looking to have set up :) >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > Cheers, >> >>> > > >> > Andrew >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > -- >> >>> > > >> > http://andywilliams.me >> >>> > > >> > http://ajwillia.ms >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> > > >> > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's >> most >> >>> > > >> > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> >>> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> >>> > > >> > enlightenment-devel mailing list >> >>> > > >> > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> >>> > > >> > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> > > >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> >>> > > >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> >>> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> > > >> enlightenment-devel mailing list >> >>> > > >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> >>> > > >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > > -- >> >>> > > > http://andywilliams.me >> >>> > > > http://ajwillia.ms >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > -- >> >>> > > http://andywilliams.me >> >>> > > http://ajwillia.ms >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> >>> > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> >>> > > _______________________________________________ >> >>> > > enlightenment-devel mailing list >> >>> > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> >>> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > -- >> >>> > ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" >> -------------- >> >>> > Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com >> >>> > >> >>> > -- >> >>> http://andywilliams.me >> >>> http://ajwillia.ms >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- >> >> Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> enlightenment-devel mailing list >> >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> _______________________________________________ >> enlightenment-devel mailing list >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > _______________________________________________ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
