I think this flow is something we should seriously consider. I find cherry picking from branch to branch to be error prone in that it's easy for someone to forget to cherry pick to all applicable branches and you don't have any easy way to see the cherry picks are related.
When I worked at HP, we had automated tools check to see if you checked a fix into a prior release, but not later releases. In such a situation, you either 1) forgot to perform the check-in or 2) the check-in was no longer applicable in the later release(s), so you needed to mark it as un-necessary (SVN supported this ability...not sure about Git). On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Rajani Karuturi < rajani.karut...@citrix.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Our current git workflow is confusing with the *forward branches and > cherry-picking. Its hard to track on what all releases the commit has gone > into unless I do some git log greping. Also, as a contributor, I endup > creating patches for each branch as it doesn’t cleanly apply on different > branches. > > > > I think we should have some guidelines. Here is what I propose. > > > > 1. There should be branch for every major release(ex: 4.3.x, 4.4.x, > 5.0.x,5.1.x) and the minor releases should be tagged accordingly on the > respective branches. > 2. The branch naming convention is to be followed. Many branches with > 4.3, 4.3.0, 4.3.1 etc. is confusing > 3. Cherry-picking should be avoided. In git, when we cherry-pick, we > have two physically distinct commits for the same change or fix and is > difficult to track unless you do cherry-pick -x > 4. There should always be a continous flow from release branches to > master. This doesn’t mean cherry-picking. They should be merged(either ff > or no-ff) which retains the commit ids and easily trackable with git branch > --contains > * Every bug fix should always flow from minimal release uptill > master. A bug isnt fixed until the fix reaches master. > * For ex. A bug 4.2.1 should be committed to > 4.2.x->4.3.x->4.4.x->master > * If someone forgets to do the merge, the next time a new commit is > done this will also get merged. > 5. There should always be a continuous flow from master to feature > branches. Meaning all feature branch owners should proactively take any new > commits from master by doing a merge from master > 6. The commits from feature branch will make to master on code complete > through a merge. > 7. There should never be a merge from master to release branches > 8. Every commit in LTS branch(targetted to any minor release) should > have atleast bug id and correct author information > * Cassandra's template: patch by <author>; reviewed by <committer> > for CASSANDRA-<ticket> > 9. Once the release branch is created(after code freeze), any bug in > jira can be marked with fix version current release(4.4) only on RM's > approval and only they can go to the release branch. This can be done > through jira and with certain rules.(may be using jira vote?) this would > save the cherry-picking time and another branch maintenance. > > > > Please add your thoughts/suggestions/comments. > > > > Ref: > http://www.draconianoverlord.com/2013/09/07/no-cherry-picking.html > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ-CpGsCpM0 > > ~Rajani > > > > -- *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud <http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>*™*
