Why implement something that doesn¹t serve any practical purpose for CS?? We should adopt only things that would address current CS problems - regressions, unstable releases, etc. That would mean - running the automation (CI, BVT) on *develop branch, cut the *fix branches for hot fixes/critical/feature bugs only and run BVT on them before merging to *develop; merge only stable code from *develop to master branch.
There would be no use for master branch if it reflects the latest release branch, which will always be present in CS model as opposed to what original article suggests. Below the explanation from the other email thread on why the release branches can¹t be removed in CS model: Rohit: ================ "IMO We ³should" remove the release branches when done. Instead there is a support workflow with git-flow (see support http://yakiloo.com/getting-started-git-flow/) and also in the tooling (git flow support etc. though experimental).² Alena: ========== If we remove the release branches, how are we going to handle maintenance releases for older versions of the code? It wouldn¹t work as its impossible to cut a maintenance release from develop branch. I think the model the article proposes, fits the products like SAS, when there are no maintenance releases and support is provided just for the latest release. Then of course, to get the latest stable release, it would make sense to access master branch which is always stable. In case when multiple releases are being maintained at the same time - like CS - it would make sense to keep release branches. Otherwise how are you going to handle this situation: 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 are released Master reflects 4.4 Maintenance 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 releases are needed Questions: How do you create those releases, from what branch? How do you merge and tag them into master branch considering that the latest version there is 4.4? Thanks, Alena. On 8/5/14, 11:36 PM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: >Exactly Rajani, and other solutions are possible. The issue is not how >branches are called ;) > >On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Rajani Karuturi ><rajani.karut...@citrix.com> wrote: >> I am just wondering if the shift to a new develop branch is causing the >>problems. Its a simple branch shift and should be no different from the >>current master. >> >> may be we should leave the master as is and create a Œstable' branch >>which would act like master in git-flow ? >> >> ie) >> ACS master -> develop in git-flow >> ACS stable -> master in git-flow >> >> >> ~Rajani >> >> >> >> On 06-Aug-2014, at 10:56 am, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>> Hello devs and especially committters, >>> >>> I see some -1s coming by, days after the vote was closed. That is >>> disturbing as it means we accepted a proposal that will not be >>> supported by the community. So let me try to find that support in >>> hindsight; >>> >>> The argument of Animesh that we are shifting the burden from one >>> branch to another is real and present danger. I share his concern. It >>> is not the only feature of this proposal and in it self does not >>> warrant a -1. It does not worsen the situation at hand or add to our >>> workload in any way. If there is no advantage to you and no >>> disadvantage either then why -1 something that others do find useful? >>> This is 'kind of' a rhetorical question. It is a real concern, however >>> though not the biggest at this moment. >>> >>> branching is recommended but as people are rightfully wondering >>> "should I make a branch for a single line fix". I would, probably but >>> maybe not always. That doesn't mean you must. In case you are making a >>> fix on a release then yes you do. It is how the git-flow workflow >>> goes. >>> >>> Committers can merge and commit where ever they feel the need. That >>> doesn't exempt them from thinking if it is a good idea. It doesn't now >>> and it won't in the future. Doing what your boss tells you to do can >>> be a crime! >>> >>> Reverting something should only be done when the code that is a >>> culprit has been identified. Reverting a big change or even a bunch of >>> changes is a cowards way out. We shouldn't do it now or using gitflow. >>> It is not really related to git flow or its use. So we shouldn't >>> penalize developers that didn't cause a problem or ones that did. We >>> should help them help us make a better system. >>> >>> The question of why this process isn't implemented on master is valid. >>> It could. It isn't however. It is a choice the authors of gitflow >>> made. I think it is not really the time anymore to be nitpicking about >>> this. Unless we find a very valid reason to alter the accepted >>> proposal we should all try and implement it as good as possible. I >>> have been RM for 4.4.0 and one thing I don't want anymore is people >>> share a 4.4-forward to cherry-pick commits from. It caused me a lot of >>> headaches. >>> >>> The release is what drives the merges back to master according to >>> git-flow. We can decide that we define a number of prerelease dates at >>> which we merge as well. We don't have to do it at that date but can >>> decide to do that the next day or week as well. This would kind of >>> resemble Alena's #1 (as opposed to the more pure gitflow #2). An >>> argument for #2 is that I don't think every customer greps the rpms >>> for some release. I know our operators at Schuberg Philis investigate >>> the code and check it out from git. They like to compare release and >>> look at the latest easily. just checking out master would be very >>> convenient for them. Of course they can check out a branch as well. >>> But I doubt if they know exactly what to checkout then. I usually see >>> them just look at the latest for a branch. >>> >>> All in all, I am very skeptic on whether this will work as planned. It >>> is us who need to work neatly and only if we do that we can help >>> ourselves with improving our process. I do feel that the present way >>> of working, mainly the use forward branches but in general the lack of >>> using branches to test individual changes, is hindering us in doing >>> releases. The proposal at hand is very good but can only work if >>> supported by the people that need to work with it. It doesn't do our >>> release process for us. We still need to do it and not just program >>> some code and check it in. That will never work in any process. Your >>> code is not done until somebody somewhere finds it worth running it in >>> a production environment. So let's keep discussing and educating each >>> other. >>> >>> done ranting, feel free to react or contact me in person >>> Daan >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:15 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Erik Weber <terbol...@gmail.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Prachi Damle >>>>><prachi.da...@citrix.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I fail to understand how will this model help us with the >>>>>>maintenance >>>>>> releases? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> That's what gitflow support branches is for. >>>>> I find this quite descriptive: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/gitflow-users/I9sErOSzYzE/AwVH06 >>>>>CuKT0J >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> For CloudStack we also keep working on prior releases and ship out >>>>>> maintenance releases. >>>>>> I suppose we will be cutting the maintenance releases from the >>>>>>release >>>>>> branches? So we will have to keep around the release branches for >>>>>>that >>>>>> purpose. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I've asked earlier, but what is the policy on old releases? How long >>>>>do we >>>>> support them? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Today (e.g. subject to change) we claim to support as a community the >>>>two >>>> most recent feature releases. (for instance, we just stopped support >>>>the >>>> 4.2.x line with the release of 4.4.0, and currently support 4.3.x and >>>> 4.4.x) We support those feature releases with bug fix releases that >>>>contain >>>> no additional functionality. >>>> >>>> --David >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daan >> > > > >-- >Daan
