I too prefer option 1
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Brandon DeVries <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Tony on option 1. I think it makes sense for master to be > the most "advanced" branch. New features will then always be applied to > master, and optionally to other branches for older version support as > applicable / desired. > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:16 AM Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I like option 1 >> On Mar 29, 2016 10:03 AM, "Matt Gilman" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> > >> > With NiFi 0.6.0 officially released and our support strategy defined [1], >> > I'd like to revisit and propose some options for supporting both a 1.x >> > branch and 0.x branch concurrently. We need an official place where these >> > efforts can be worked, contributed to, and collaborated with the >> community. >> > I've already created a 1.x branch as a temporary place for this codebase >> to >> > live until we agree to an approach. >> > >> > Either option I'm proposing will require PRs/contributions/patches to be >> > applied to both branches as applicable. This means that the contributor >> or >> > the reviewer will need to be able to apply the commits in both places if >> > it's necessary. For instance, framework code has already started >> diverging >> > from the current master so any framework change may not need to be >> applied >> > to both if the changeset is not applicable to the 1.x baseline. >> > >> > The only question at the moment is what master will refer to. >> > >> > 1) Create a branch for 0.x and allow master to become the 1.x baseline >> > going forward. Future 0.x releases will be performed from the 0.x branch. >> > 2) Continuing working on the 1.x branch as is. Allow master to continue >> to >> > servicing 0.x releases. Once a 1.x release is made, create the 0.x branch >> > and then allow master to service 1.x releases. >> > >> > In short, when do we want master to point to the 1.x baseline? When >> should >> > we create a branch where 0.x releases will be made from. Regardless, >> > contributions will need to be performed to both places as applicable. >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > Matt >> > >> > [1] >> > >> > >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCALJK9a7bWjff7xXGmUtp3nFV3HRmqbLL1StwkXcf5JdohNPRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Richard Miskin <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I guess it will depend how much change is expected on the maintenance >> > > branches, >> > > but if you want every change in the maintenance branch to go into the >> > > main-line branch then there is little difference from a conflict point >> of >> > > view >> > > between a series of cherry-picks and a merge. >> > > >> > > Either way, it is just another approach to consider. There’s more than >> > one >> > > way to do it, and I suspect there isn’t any solution that makes it >> > trivial. >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > Richard >> > > >> > > >> > > > On 27 Feb 2016, at 14:43, Aldrin Piri <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > On board with Tony's points. I think the realities of merging in >> > > practice >> > > > when that "breaking point" of sorts occurs will make the complexity >> and >> > > > overhead quite difficult and maybe even more error prone than the >> > cherry >> > > > picking approach with some additional guidelines. When the codebase >> > > > drastically changes, the merge conflicts could be quite severe and >> > > without >> > > > a good knowledge of each part of the codebase involved during that >> > > process, >> > > > a committer may introduce regressions. >> > > > >> > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> the reason I like applying patches to both lines is that once code >> > > begins >> > > >> to diverge, cleanly merging into one codebase can be impossible. >> > having >> > > >> good practices for managing patches and where they apply is >> paramount >> > > for >> > > >> success. >> > > >> >> > > >> I expect that divergence to happen with 1.x. I wanted to get in a >> > battle >> > > >> rhythm of sorts of managing multiple lines, even if the patches >> COULD >> > be >> > > >> applied to both in the manner you described. >> > > >> >> > > >> Joe W and I did a wee bit of scrambling to ensure that tickets >> marked >> > > for >> > > >> 0.5.1 had the right patches in the support branch, and some didn't, >> > so I >> > > >> think "lesson learned". I do like in the apache infrastructure that >> if >> > > >> commits have the appropriate ticket in their commit message, the >> jira >> > > will >> > > >> have the list of commits and branches those commits were applies to. >> > > >> However, I think we may need to revisit commit message "hygiene" if >> > we >> > > >> relied on this instead of more manual review. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Richard Miskin < >> [email protected] >> > > >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>> Hi, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On a couple of work projects we found that the approach of >> > > cherry-picking >> > > >>> commits can lead to an unnecessarily complicated history where the >> > same >> > > >>> piece of work appears as multiple separate commits on different >> > > branches. >> > > >>> This can then make it hard to be confident that a bug fix has been >> > > >> applied >> > > >>> to all relevant branches. We found that it works better to aim to >> > > commit >> > > >>> changes to the lowest applicable branch, and then regularly merge >> > those >> > > >>> branches to master. This approach is based on the git-flow model ( >> > > >>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ < >> > > >>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/>). >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Looking at the repo there are already a few commits that are >> > duplicated >> > > >> on >> > > >>> master and 0.5.1. Using the model I suggest they’d only occur on >> > 0.5.1, >> > > >> and >> > > >>> then that branch would get merged to master. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Having the merge commits from the support branch to master makes it >> > > >>> explicit in the git history that all bug fixes (and associated >> tests) >> > > >> have >> > > >>> been pulled through to master. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Cheers, >> > > >>> Richard >> > > >>> >> > > >>>> On 26 Feb 2016, at 06:59, James Wing <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Thanks, Joe, let me try rephrasing a few of those and see if you >> > > agree: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor >> > > >>> release, >> > > >>>> currently 0.6.0, by default? >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> By default, commits to master will be released in the next major >> or >> > > >> minor >> > > >>>> release. No commits are included in incremental/patch releases by >> > > >>> default. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained? >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> support/0.5.x will be maintained until the first of the following >> > > >> events: >> > > >>>> a.) 0.6.0 is released (next minor release in major release line) >> > > >>>> b.) One year after 1.0.0 is released ("previous major release >> lines >> > up >> > > >> to >> > > >>>> one year since the last minor release (0.4.y, 1.5.y) in that >> line") >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> But additional support might be available by special request. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future >> major >> > > >>>> release stored? Is it visible anywhere? >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> I suppose Jira tickets targeting the next major release >> > > >>> could/should/would >> > > >>>> (do?) push branches. That seems weak in the face of a probable >> > > >> stampede >> > > >>>> towards the fire exit of a major release, but it's a start. I'm >> not >> > > >>> aware >> > > >>>> of any great solutions here, certainly not for an open-source >> > project. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> 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> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
