James, These are great questions to frame and test the model. So let's attempt to address them agains the model.
Here is the language for that model at this time: - We support the newest major release line (0.x, 1.x) and any previous major release lines up to one year since the last minor release (0.4.y, 1.5.y) in that line - When master has no releases we will backport any appropriate changes (fix, feature, enhancement) to the previous major release line - Any security or data loss related fixes should be back ported to all supported major release lines - Fixes, improvements, features will be applied to the next release (minor or incremental) within a given major release line and will only be back ported on a case by case basis for fixes - In order to consider a patch for back porting to a previous minor release line a request needs to be made to the developer or user mailing list with a successful discussion and a release candidate produced' So with those above let's review 1 through 5 in turn. 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor release, currently 0.6.0, by default? Master is for whatever is the most leading edge release line working toward the next release. At the time that a minor release occurs against that release line then it branches off into a support/x.y.* branch for any further efforts against it. 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there restrictions before or after releases? I believe master would be always open for new code. From some point at which a release is considered feature complete then further feature enhancements need to go on master as part of the next release effort. 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained? The most recent minor release line of a major line will be supported for up to one year from whenever it was released where support is for bug fixes for security or data loss related items. Releases for older minor lines should be considered on a case by case basis and if requested. Otherwise the basic premise is the train is moving forward. 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major release stored? Is it visible anywhere? It must be visible. It should be placed into a branch until such time that it is ready to become the new master. That time would be when the next release will be for that line. When I think about this against the stated model we could probably tweak the wording to better articulate that. I think it was what was meant with 'when master has no releases we will backport...' but that is unclear. 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all minor releases in the 0.x line? Only to the most recent minor release of any still supported major line. However, the catch of 'case by case' determination for older minor lines is still in play. Basically if someone requests it and can get enough momentum for it then it should be no problem to produce such a release. Thanks Joe On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:15 PM, James Wing <[email protected]> wrote: > I have some rhetorical questions for discussion of the branching model: > > 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor release, > currently 0.6.0, by default? > > 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there restrictions > before or after releases? > > 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained? > > 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major > release stored? Is it visible anywhere? > > 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be > backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all minor > releases in the 0.x line? > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Given the discussion has stalled i'd like to turn it more toward a >> proposal as we're at a point now where we need to start executing some >> of these approaches. We're actually already seeing it take form in >> the support/0.5.x branch and the master branch (which is for 0.6.0 at >> this point). >> >> The proposal then for Git processes based on the other thread [1] >> where we outline a support model: >> >> - We will have a branch for each major release line >> >> - The branch designated 'master' will be for the latest major release >> line under active development >> >> - Commits against master should be evaluated for whether they should >> be cherry-picked to other still supported major release lines >> consistent with the community support model >> >> - When a release occurs a signed tag will be generated and the version >> for that major line will be bumped to the next incremental release >> snapshot >> >> - The next commit on a given major release line that requires a minor >> version change should increment the minor version number and reset >> incremental to zero >> >> - Major version changes should only ever be prompted from the master >> branch and should only occur when a commit warrants changing the major >> version at which point a major release line branch should be created >> off of master for the previous major release line >> >> [1] >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCALJK9a7bWjff7xXGmUtp3nFV3HRmqbLL1StwkXcf5JdohNPRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E >> >> Thanks >> Joe >> >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I don't want to kill this thread. It is good to discuss specific >> > tooling/procedures. But I do want to get some consensus discussion >> > around Tony's original intent (as I read it). So kicked off a >> > discussion back at that level. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> While I like gitflow, I can't say I like any of the plugins that are >> used. >> >> I have worked on some other projects (unfortunately not open source) >> that >> >> use a gitflow inspired workflow, without ever using a plugin. Nice side >> >> effect is that I believe this got me better at using git, and generally >> we >> >> all got better at managing merge pain. >> >> >> >> On merge problems, I think the reason we're operating the way we are >> now is >> >> to avoid merge mayhem. I think the initial bar for a patch is "can be >> >> merged into master", and we have our friend Travis to make this even >> easier >> >> to know upfront. This greatly simplifies things. If a bugfix is "patch >> >> needs to be able to apply onto the current release in progress, master, >> and >> >> several other versions we're supporting, with possibly drastically >> >> different code", well then things get interesting. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Benson Margulies < >> [email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> The issue tracker >> >>> >> >>> >> https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/projects/MJF/issues/MJF-259?filter=allopenissues >> >>> might also prove useful in evaluating it. >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Benson Margulies >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> > I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It worked great, until >> it >> >>> > didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, merge problems. No >> >>> > one seemed to be maintaining it. >> >>> > >> >>> > There's a new offering in this dept: >> >>> > https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin. >> >>> > >> >>> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in combination >> with >> >>> >> maven. It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking closely >> with >> >>> the >> >>> >> maven pom.xml version. gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the pom >> >>> version >> >>> >> updated with the git release names. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags >> >>> synchronized >> >>> >> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be >> approached >> >>> >> with tools that are available through maven rather than from git. >> The >> >>> >> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal with >> >>> this >> >>> >> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1] plugin, >> which >> >>> >> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a maven >> >>> project. >> >>> >> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that the >> >>> master >> >>> >> branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the >> strict >> >>> >> gitflow workflow). I just mention this, in reference to how some >> >>> plugins >> >>> >> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/ >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <[email protected] >> > >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow. Your Master become >> >>> primary >> >>> >>> development of next release (with feature branches off of it).. >> while >> >>> you >> >>> >>> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches >> off of >> >>> >>> them. (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad practice ! >> ) >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to >> >>> >>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its >> really >> >>> >>> that easy. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/ >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools >> like >> >>> >>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either >> built >> >>> in or >> >>> >>> plugin available now. If you want to live on the command line, >> then >> >>> that >> >>> >>> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Thad >> >>> >>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>
