There is a very similar discussion ongoing on the groovy incubation mailing list.
The rub is that for commits to be accepted into geode, they have to be pushed to the apache git repo. This removes the option of using github pull requests as a way of following through the whole code acceptance flow. It does though mean that you can create forks of the github mirror, open a PR and then locally merge that onto the apache git as another git remote alongside github. I would suggest having most work in the github world, and a published method for new contributors to do a normal github fork and pull approach. Contributors can then use a process to migrate that to apache git once it is approved for merge. That allows use of the github infra for review and a public face where, at the moment, people would expect it to be. This is something of a seperate thing from the branching model, sorry for hijacking the thread. David. -- David Dawson CEO Simplicity Itself Ltd Tel +7866011256 Skype davidadawson [email protected] http://www.simplicityitself.com Original Message From: Pid Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2015 09:59 To: [email protected] Reply To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Branching model On 01/05/2015 17:50, Dan Smith wrote: > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:07 AM, jan i <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Public feature branches should only be used, when multiple people work on a >> feature. A feature branch is started after the intention is made clear on >> dev@ Pushing a feature branch could be a simple way to offer it for review. I understand that Geode will be RTC (Review-Then-Commit), so we should discuss how the review process will work in combination with git-flow. > One thing we've done within our organization is make a distinction between > public feature branches - which are longer lived with multiple committers, > and "work in progress" branches for individual changes which are generally > owned by a single committer and are very short lived. > > Would it make sense for committers to create work in progress branches on > the apache github, or should these be maintained outside apache > infastructure? As above, I think the mechanism by which proposed changes are to be reviewed has some bearing here. IMHO it doesn't make sense to maintain branches elsewhere, unless they are solely in your local copy of the git repository and there's some other mechanism for reviewing them before they are merged into the develop branch on the origin repo. Thoughts? p > -Dan > -- [key:62590808]
