I think the fix/feature thing in the branch name is a little odd. Is
there any real need for that? We're going to struggle with branch name
lengths anyway, trying to cram a useful summary of the JIRA title, etc. If
we really DO want it, I would suggest we mirror the categories in JIRA. We
have
Oh, and just a note to say that I don't really care as long as whatever we
pick ties in to the branching process that we fleshed out in Dublin. After
this release I want us to be very strict about how changes land on release
branches. But beyond that, I don't actually know enough about Git to
Or just leave it out entirely like we said at the start of all this.
Sent from the ocean floor
On 3 Nov 2012, at 16:16, Noah Slater nsla...@apache.org wrote:
I think the fix/feature thing in the branch name is a little odd. Is
there any real need for that? We're going to struggle with branch
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Robert Newson robert.new...@gmail.comwrote:
Or just leave it out entirely like we said at the start of all this.
so at then end we will have XXX branches. Or rather what is the
policy to delete branches?
- benoit
I'd say the policy on branch deletions is don't but others might
disagree. git branch --no-merged is useful.
Sent from the ocean floor
On 3 Nov 2012, at 16:38, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Robert Newson robert.new...@gmail.comwrote:
Or just leave
i don't want to have to always have to use a tool to just sort branches by
topic. I'm fine to have topic branches associated to their jira naming.
Sounds like a good idea.
- benoît
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Robert Newson robert.new...@gmail.comwrote:
I'd say the policy on branch
On Nov 1, 2012, at 11:29 PM, Eli Stevens (Gmail) wickedg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Eli, Benoit linked to a variant of it in the beginning of this thread.
There's a lot to like about it, and most of it is very similar to
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
Hi Eli, Benoit linked to a variant of it in the beginning of this thread.
There's a lot to like about it, and most of it is very similar to the workflow
we're converging on in this project. The big difference is that in git-flow
the HEAD of master is always the latest tagged release, and that
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Eli, Benoit linked to a variant of it in the beginning of this thread.
There's a lot to like about it, and most of it is very similar to the
workflow we're converging on in this project. The big difference is that
Hello guys,
II would like to discuss a little about our branch naming. Today we have
conflicting docs somehow:
- http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Source%20Code%20Repository%20Organization
- http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/ContributorWorkflow
and one another I don't find on the wiki now (without
On 31 October 2012 09:07, Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello guys,
II would like to discuss a little about our branch naming. Today we have
conflicting docs somehow:
- http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Source%20Code%20Repository%20Organization
-
For my part, I was pretty content with the scheme we agreed to in Dublin
(jira-shortdesc).
I would like to discuss the old branches that don't follow any scheme at
all, is it time we deleted those?
For going forward, I think every jira-shortdesc branch lives forever. 'git
branch --no-merged
On Oct 31, 2012, at 13:21 , Robert Newson robert.new...@gmail.com wrote:
For my part, I was pretty content with the scheme we agreed to in Dublin
(jira-shortdesc).
I would like to discuss the old branches that don't follow any scheme at
all, is it time we deleted those?
For going
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
On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org wrote:
On Oct 31, 2012, at 13:21 , Robert Newson
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@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
On Oct 31, 2012, at 16:23 , Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@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
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org wrote:
On Oct 31, 2012, at 16:23 , Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@apache.org
wrote:
No objection from me, Jan. I don't see the need for a dedicated
On Oct 31, 2012, at 16:39 , Benoit Chesneau bchesn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jan Lehnardt j...@apache.org wrote:
On Oct 31, 2012, at 16:23 , Paul Davis paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Adam Kocoloski kocol...@apache.org
19 matches
Mail list logo
