I can get behind this also, but I have an additional suggestion that diverges from the proposed model at http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ (suggested earlier in this thread):
I'm not a fan of separate "master" and "develop" branches, since "master" is only used as a pointer for tracking the latest and greatest stable tag. I think just a "master" would be fine (for active development on the next anticipated major release), because I think it's safe to assume people know what tags are and how to use them if they want a stable version. If we *really* need a pointer, I'd rather call it "stable", as it's more explicit. -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/4/13 9:35 AM, Keith Turner wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser<josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >Yay, Git. Wait... >>>> > >>>> >I was going to wait to respond until I collected all of the info, but >>>> >since I still haven't gotten that done yet, I figured I should just say >>>> >"sure". >>>> > >>>> >The one thing I do want to get hammered out is the general workflow we >>>> >plan to use. I believe that one "unstable" or "development" branch will >>>> >satisfy most use cases as we typically don't have much active >>>> development >>>> >against previous major releases. >>>> > >>>> >The thing I don't care for (putting it mildly) is long-running >>>> >minor-release branches. I'm curious of suggestions that people might >>>> have >>>> >for how to work around this. One >>>> >>> >>> Why? What problems are you thinking of w/ long-running minor release >>> branches? >>> >> >> I do not like them. It's mainly a personal opinion. Most modern SCM tools >> (even that 'terrible' SVN) strongly encourage you to release early and >> often. As such, I don't like having branches named like tags/releases. This >> is mostly a personal opinion; however, you can also read that as opinions >> after using git for ~5 years. >> > > Discussed this w/ Christopher and Josh. I understand Josh's point of view > a bit better now. One thing I was unsure about was what to name these > transient branches for gathering bug fixes. Christopher suggested using > snapshots, which seems very natural to me. > > * For serious bugs in 1.4.3 take 1.4.3 tag and create 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT > branch > * Merge bug fixes to 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT from bug fix branches > * Eventually tag 1.4.4 and delete 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT branch > * 1.4.5-SNAPSHOT would only be created on an as needed basis. > > I think this is nicer than leaving a 1.4 branch around. > > >> >>> >possibility would be to be git-tag heavy while being more lax on >>>> official >>>> >apache releases. >>>> > >>>> >Merits: >>>> >- Less merging through 2-3 branches which a bug-fix might apply >>>> >(1.4->1.5->1.6) >>>> >- Less clutter in the branch space (could be moot if we impose some sort >>>> >of "hierarchy" in branch names, e.g. bugfixes/ACCUMULO-XXXX, >>>> >minor/ACCUMULO-XXXX) >>>> >- Quicker availability of fixes for consumers (after a fix, a new tag is >>>> >made) >>>> > >>>> >Downsides: >>>> >- Could create more work for us as we would be noting new minor >>>> releases. >>>> >Does Christopher's release work mitigate some/most of this? >>>> >- Creating git-tags without making an official release_might_ skirt a >>>> >>>> >line on ASF releases. Some artifact that is intended for public >>>> consumption >>>> >is meant to follow the release process. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>> It seems like you have a specific workflow in mind, but its not clear to >>> me >>> exactly what you are thinking. Are you planning on elaborating on this >>> tonight? Is this workflow written up somewhere? If its not written up, a >>> few quick example scenarios would probably help me get on the same page. >>> >> >> That's correct. I don't have the time to make a good write-up right now. >> I'll try to outline what I think would work fully tonight, but I tried to >> outline the general gist of what I think is best. >> >> >> >>> >Personally, I'd consider making the bold assumption that, over time, we >>>> >will create the infrastructure for ourselves to make better and better >>>> >releases which will also mitigate this. I'm curious what everyone else >>>> >thinks. >>>> > >>>> >I'll try to make time tonight to get info on all of the necessary below. >>>> >>>
