We should definitely be very clear on the goals before trying to pick a
specific technical strategy!

If 2.0 is basically "done" except for bugfixes, then the best strategy is
probably to just do everything on master (3.0) and only backport /
cherry-pick specific bugfixes.  I'm assuming that was the underlying
rational for calling 3.0 master?


On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
[email protected]> wrote:

> In this case I think the PRs were made against master. But, they both
> apply to CURATOR-2.0.
>
> Another possibility is that we sunset CURATOR-2.0 and just say - time to
> move on CURATOR-2.0 is what it is.
>
> -JZ
>
> > On May 8, 2017, at 6:22 AM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > The PRs were presumably made against the 3.0 baseline? I guess if it's a
> > 3.0 specific fix it should just be merged to master. If it's a 2.0 fix
> then
> > it should be merged into 2.0 and then merged up to master if appropriate.
> >
> > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> [email protected]
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> For example, I just merged CURATOR-409/CURATOR-410 - a simple merge of
> >> those two into CURATOR-2.0 would bring in all the CURATOR-3.0 changes.
> >>
> >> -JZ
> >>
> >>> On May 8, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Cameron McKenzie <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Can we still apply patches (where appropriate) to CURATOR-2.0 and merge
> >>> into master?  Cherry picking seems very manual and error prone (at
> least
> >>> based on my minimal Git experience).
> >>> cheers
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> >> [email protected]
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Now that CURATOR-3.0 is master, how should we deal with keeping
> >>>> CURATOR-2.0 in sync. It's no longer possible to do simple merges.
> >> Should we
> >>>> cherry-pick changes into CURATOR-2.0? Should we require separate PRs
> for
> >>>> changes to each branch?
> >>>>
> >>>> Scott, you're our resident git expert. Any best practices to apply
> here?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Jordan
> >>
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to