IMHO, we don't have sufficient *team focus* on one version: how could we have 
focus on multiple versions at the same time?

working on creating a scheme to let people work without the others on another 
objective (which is supposed to be "the next one") is a recipe for split 
developer efforts

Regards,

Hervé

Le lundi 20 mars 2017, 00:38:26 CET Christian Schulte a écrit :
> Am 03/19/17 um 18:34 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> > Unlike the other discuss threads, I think I have some extra context that
> > means I am going to start from my proposal... or rather my requirements
> > and
> > then proposal to solve those requirements.
> > 
> > Requirements
> > ===========
> > 
> > As a Release Manager,
> > 
> > I cannot tell which branches on the CI server are targeted for the release
> > and which are "future work"
> > 
> > I cannot tell who is responsible for which branches in order to know who
> > to
> > ask w.r.t. their status
> > 
> > As a PMC member tasked with reviewing commits
> > 
> > I cannot keep track of all the many commits and rebases
> > 
> > Proposal
> > ========
> > 
> > 1. We should use a naming scheme for all branches. I am suggesting
> > owner/targetBranch/mng-XXXX - this gives me the information about who owns
> > the branch and where the branch is targeted for.
> 
> s/targetBranch/targetVersion/g
> 
> We currently have 3.5.0-SNAPSHOT on master. There is no way to create a
> branch for 3.5.1-SNAPSHOT today using that naming scheme. Today, master
> is at 3.5.0-SNAPSHOT, in one year master is at 3.6.0-SNAPSHOT. Creating
> a branch like schulte/master/MNG-6135 today, does not indicate the
> target version. The branch should be named schulte/3.6.0/MNG-6135. Not
> sure the name really is needed. Finding out about the author or
> committer is easy looking at the latest commits.
> 
> Regards,



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Reply via email to