On Nov 1, 2012, at 07:15 , Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote:
> So I didn't realize we settled on Ticket-{feature,fix}_coolname here (hence
> my git spam this morning) . Imo this naming is awkward and miss the initial
> goal. ie make it easy to parse even for humans.
>
> Today this isn't a problem we have not so many branch. But in near future I
> expect more activity on the repo and it will become important. It will be
> hard to rename it after than deciding today on a good naming. Imo we should
> really think a little more on that. Beeing relaxed is fine, but to be
> honest I am generally more relax when I know that things in the future
> won't be a problem.
No worries Benoit, this is all very new and in flux. Thanks Adam for looking
after consistency with our processes. I realise this was all a bit hurried.
* * *
I don’t much care for whether we do [fix|feature]/jiranumber-summary or
jiranumber-[fix|feature]-summary or just jiranumber-summary or whatever
else (that is sensible) as long as we stick to one of them.
I went with the lazy consensus version of jiranumber-[fix/feature]-summary
because that’s how I understood the proposal, but then I could have been
wrong. Sorry about that. Now is the time to fix this.
I’m happy to change this to [fix|feature]/jiranumber-summary or
[fix|feature]/jiranumber_summary, or an entirely new (sensible) formats
now.
Please cast your bikeshedding opinions. I’ll make a call after 72
hours based on the responses (note that this isn’t a vote, I’ll just
make an informed decision for the group). I’ll update this thread
AND make a formal announcement of the branch naming scheme.
Thanks for all your patience!
Jan
--
>
>
> - benoit
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 16:39 , Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 31, 2012, at 16:23 , Paul Davis <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> No objection from me, Jan. I don't see the need for a dedicated
>>>> "develop" branch at the moment, but then I've not worked intensively on
>> a
>>>> project which had one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the intention there is if you have a sufficiently large test
>>>>> suite that accurately represents reality. Thus when you're landing
>>>>> features in quick succession you have a place to test the combination
>>>>> before they "go live". I'm not sure we really have that (also
>>>>> considering that we run our test suite locally and don't rely on a
>>>>> central CI server).
>>>>
>>>> Good summary!
>>>>
>>>> I think we want to be working towards that, but yeah, we are not
>>>> really there yet, and we don't have many concurrent features and
>>>> fixes going on.
>>>>
>>>> But again, I am happy to reconsider this, when we run into issues
>>>> with the current setup.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Jan
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure it will help when we will have n branches. Also I think we
>>> should have more test and c-i. The current situation is not that good and
>>> we spoke about it at the boston summit.
>>
>> Fully agreed!
>>
>>> Anyway if we stay with the current situation yes having one referent doc
>>> would be good.
>>
>> I updated http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Merge_Procedure.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
