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 master' will show all the branches we haven't merged in, and I advocate that as our mechanism for figuring out which branches are dead, rather than removing the sometimes-useful history of a ticket. On 31 October 2012 09:16, Dave Cottlehuber <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31 October 2012 09:07, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> 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 > > > > - http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/ContributorWorkflow > > > > and one another I don't find on the wiki now (without my bookmarks) > > > > > > Maybe we can make a one page describing the branching workflow and such ? > > > > Also my understanding now is that branch should be named by > > <TicketNumber>_<shortdescr> > > > > which sound good. > > > > I would like to introduce another level to help us when we have to look > on > > different branches. This is mainly based on that doc : > > > > > http://nxvl.blogspot.fr/2012/07/a-continous-delivery-git-branching-model.html > > > > and it could help for continuous integration when we will have it. > > > > In short : > > > > - a develop branch where all patches should land before to go in master. > > This branch can be used for final review and make sure it doesn't break > > anything else. > > > > - a `fix/<TicketNumber>_<shortdescr>` for changes fixing a bug > > - a `feature/<TicketNumber>_<shortdescr>` for new features > > - usual X.X.x branch for releases (those we could name them /release/X.X. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > - benoît > > +1 > > > http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t4yLz-et74A/UBIES98QPmI/AAAAAAAADGY/S5lwne9xpcM/s1600/releaseFlow.png > > seems very similar to the OTP approach as well. > > Just tell me what I need to do :-) > > A+D >
