On Mar 17, 2013 6:44 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> That's problem is solved by applying this policy naming > > > Because in the withboard projects we don't use jira (at least the moment) "bug/jira-#2342" doesn't work, "whiteboard/fthomas" is the same than "fthomas". > It goes beyond that, the pattern should be <UserNameProjectNameBranchName>, but it's still to risky to go by convention IMO. > > -Fred
No one organizes it this way today in the whiteboard on SVN. You are over complicating things :-) Whiteboards are like scratch pads where committers do work temporarily before moving them into appropriate repos. I believe branches for committers with sub folders for their individual projects should suffice. Thanks, Om > > -----Message d'origine----- From: Jose Barragan > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:33 AM > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: Committers - preparing for Git > > That's problem is solved by applying this policy naming: > > master > develop > whiteboard/fthomas > whiteboard/cdutz > whiteboard/mclean > feature/add-maven-descriptor > feature/add-installer-fp-download > feature/add-fp-download > bug/jira-#2342 > > ... > using nominal branches, which are structured to manage virtual folders > > > -- > Jose Barragan > Chief Software Architect > Codeoscopic Madrid > C/. Infanta Mercedes, 92. > Planta 5. 505. > 28020 Madrid. > Tel.: +34 912 94 80 80 > > On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:21 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> can really get quickly messy, I wouldn't take this risk. >> >> >> Again, if folks have several projects and those projects several branches as it common using GIT, without strict maming convention, the list of the branches which can grow a lot will mess the people to retreive even their own branch, imagine : >> >> fthomas >> cdutz >> mclean >> feature_add_maven_descriptor >> feature_add_installer_fp_download >> feature_add_fp_download >> >> Can you say for sure from those branches, which ones goes with which user/project ? >> >>> Why is this a better option? >> >> >> each one got its own space and can do whatever he wants. >> >>> I could live with leaving the whiteboard in SVN. >> >> >> Me too. >> >> -Fred >> >> -----Message d'origine----- From: Om >> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:06 AM >> To: dev@flex.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Committers - preparing for Git >> >> On Mar 17, 2013 5:56 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I agree with you Justin, each persons branch is a bad pratice, the repo >> >> can really get quickly messy, I wouldn't take this risk. >> >> Describe 'messy', please. I am not sure what the concern is. >> >>> Maybe one repo by person is not feasible, how do we know without asking ? >> >> >> Why is this a better option? >> >>> If it's not feasible, I would stay in SVN too and if I really want to >> >> work with GIT, I would use git-svn clone, it takes a bit of time to setup >> but once done, it works like a charm. >>> >>> >> >> I could live with leaving the whiteboard in SVN. >> >> This is probably why no other project has whiteboards in git. >> >> Thanks, >> Om >> >>> >>> -Fred >>> >>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Justin Mclean >>> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 1:12 AM >>> >>> To: dev@flex.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Committers - preparing for Git >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>>> I vote for creating a branch for each committer under whiteboard. Anyone >>>> else want to chime in? >>> >>> >>> By branch I assume you mean repo not sure if everyone having their own >> >> branch make sense as each persons branch would contain different files etc >> etc. >>> >>> >>> But currently using git for the white board area is basically unusable >> >> (unless you have high speed access) , so we either keep it in SVN or create >> repo for each committer however I'm not sure Infra would go for that second >> option. >>> >>> >>> Justin >> >> >
