If we worked on master and had a prod branch that was the last release, then we have the same thing we do now, just with different names. This would be GitLab Flow as Brandon pointed out.
That being said, I don't have experience with the release process, and maybe the prod branch does not provide any value for us. The prod branch would normally be used to create quick fix branches based off production, or when doing automated/continuous deployments to a production system, but if we aren't doing either of those things then maybe it is not worth it. -Bryan On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Brandon DeVries <b...@jhu.edu> wrote: > Personally, I still think GitLab Flow[1] is all we need for us to be Really > Useful Engines. > > [1] https://about.gitlab.com/2014/09/29/gitlab-flow/ > > Brandon > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:15 PM Joe Witt <joew...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Resending > > On Aug 13, 2015 12:22 PM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Team, > > > > > > It was proposed by Ryan Blue on another thread that we consider > > > dropping the master vs develop distinction. In the interest of his, > > > in my view, very good point I didn't want it to get buried in that > > > thread. > > > > > > [1] is the thread when we last discussed gitflow/develop/master on > > > entry to the incubator. > > > > > > And from that thread here is the part I wish I had better understood > > > when the wise Mr Benson said it: > > > > > > "Another issue with gitflow is the master branch. The master branch is > > > supposed to get merged to for releases. The maven-release-plugin won't > > > do that, and the jgitflow plugin is unsafe. So one option is to 'use > > > gitflow' but not bother with the master versus develop distinction, > > > the other is to do manual merges to master at release points." > > > > > > I think we should follow this guidance: "'use gitflow' but not bother > > > with the master versus develop distinction". I say this from having > > > done the release management job now a couple of times including having > > > done a 'hotfix'. > > > > > > My comments here are not a rejection of that master/develop concept in > > > general. It is simply pointing out that for the Apache NiFi community > > > it is not adding value but is creating confusion and delay [2]. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Joe > > > > > > [1] http://s.apache.org/GIW > > > [2] Sir Topham Hatt - Thomas and Friends (tm) > > > > > >
