We definitely need some sort of solution and using an obvious pattern for staging branch could be one of them.
However, I see David mentioning that it is an interim solution and they might already be evaluating options. On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:40 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > > So today, we're taking an interim step of disabling non-fast-forward > pushes and branch deletion across all of our git repos. I emphasize > interim, as it's a stop-gap measure to get us back to the level of > protection we've set expectations for. I know that this will be > disruptive to many folks' way of operating in their git environment, > so we are hoping to make this interim solution short lived. If your > project has immediate needs that you find are blocked by this, please > do reach out to the Infrastructure team, and we will work to make sure > we can help with a timely workaround for those specific cases. > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Nov 5, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure what to do here. INFRA just changed the Git behavior so it > is > > no longer possible to delete branches. I generally don't like to have > > failed branches in a release history (otherwise you get a release branch > > with all these maven forward/backwards commits). As such, I would > overwrite > > candidate branches historically (dropping the failed release commits). > > (Moving to a new thread to as not to hijack the VOTE thread.) > > I am wresting with the same problem with Calcite. I wonder whether we > should ask INFRA to treat branches called ‘temporary-…’ differently. > > Julian > >
