Oh, and just a note to say that I don't really care as long as whatever we pick ties in to the branching process that we fleshed out in Dublin. After this release I want us to be very strict about how changes land on release branches. But beyond that, I don't actually know enough about Git to offer any useful comments. For instance, I don't really understand how master will be used once we switch to these formal release branches. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
On 1 November 2012 11:35, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > >> -- > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > -- NS
