Regarding git flow, I think it inserts layers of indirection only useful to projects with some degree of concurrent development. At the current pace of Artemis, having a master as a development branch and cooking up issues/fixes on feature-branches should suffice.
Github flow: always branch from master, propose a PR, after peer review, if it is minor, merge it to master, if it is not, either bump the version up and merge it or reserve it for a future release. PRs can be made of multiple commits if it facilitates our understanding, and should be merged with --no-ff, to avoid rebase mistakes. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:59 AM Martyn Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > Similar to other comments here. > > My preference to use Git Hub work flow for all. A consistent work flow > across board keeps everyone on the same page. I also feel that peer > reviews are important part of the work flow. It helps prevent mistakes > and keeps the code base in good shape. > > On 08/06/15 14:41, Daniel Kulp wrote: > >> On Jun 8, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Justin Bertram <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> We recently published a Hacking Guide that outlines the typical > development cycle: > https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/blob/master/docs/hacking-guide/en/code.md#typical-development-cycle > >> > >> Improvements are certainly welcome. > > I think this is ok for workflow for non-committers. Nice to have that > documented. Committers should not have to go through github. > > > > In particular: step 4 can just be push your branch to a new branch at > Apache. There isn’t a need for github for that > > Step 5: if you push to Apache in step 4, all the commits would be on > the Apache commits list and would be fine for discussion from there. > > Step 7: if you are a committer, just push it to master. There is no > need for the pull requests from github. > > > > > > Dan > > > > > >> > >> Justin > >> > >> P.S. I already sent a PR to get the references to the old JIRA repo > (i.e. ACTIVEMQ6) updated to the new one (i.e. ARTEMIS). > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Bruce Snyder" <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 2:10:14 PM > >> Subject: Git workflow for committers > >> > >> New committer Marc Schöchlin has raised some questions about the git > >> workflow to use as he continues to work on the init scripts. This is a > >> perfect opportunity for all committers to discuss the workflow that we > >> recommend be used when working on ActiveMQ projects and I will document > the > >> end result on the wiki in association with the 'How To Become a > >> Committer...' page. > >> > >> After many years of experience with git, I am a big fan of git flow ( > >> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/) but I don't > >> believe that is being used on ActiveMQ. So what is the general git > workflow > >> that committers use today? > >> > >> Bruce > >> > >> -- > >> perl -e 'print > >> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' > >> > >> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ > >> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/ > >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder > >
