Is travis ci / githib able to give immediate feedback if a PR doesn't merge into both?
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Matt Gilman <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > I have completed the branching discussed last week. > > - master contains the current 1.x baseline - Future 1.x releases will start > from here > - 0.x contains the 0.x baseline - Future 0.x releases will start from here > > Going forward all PRs will need to be merged the either or both branches as > appropriate to ensure it's included in subsequent releases. I will be > updating the quick start and contributor guide to describe the distinction > between the two branches. > > Thanks! > > Matt > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Matt Gilman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > The majority consensus is to have master point to our 1.x baseline going > > forward. Unless there are any strong objections I will set everything up > on > > Monday (4/4) morning. > > > > - Create a 0.x branch for all future 0.x releases based on the current > > state of master. > > - Apply all 1.x commits from the temporary 1.x branch to master. > > - Delete the temporary 1.x branch. > > - Update the quickstart page and contribution guide to detail the > > distinction between the 0.x and master branches. > > - Send another email to @dev once this has been completed. > > > > Reminder: Going forward once this has been completed all commits will > need > > to be made to both branches as appropriate. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Matt > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Matt Gilman <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Matt, > >> > >> I agree that the PRs would need to be merged to both baselines at > >> contribution time. If the contribution applies cleanly the reviewer > could > >> certainly handle the commit themselves. However, if additional code > changes > >> are required because the baselines have diverged, the contributor would > >> probably need to submit another PR. This additional effort should only > be > >> necessary until we're able to perform the first 1.x release. > >> > >> Aldrin, > >> > >> I definitely understand your thoughts regarding (1) and (2). This is why > >> I wanted to pose the options before just jumping into one approach vs > the > >> other. I personally prefer the GitHub style PR process. I realize this > is > >> more cumbersome but hopefully the number of conflicts should be small as > >> folks are already starting to focus their efforts on the framework for > 1.x. > >> > >> Matt > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Aldrin Piri <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I think I prefer option 2 considering, what may be the incorrect > >>> assumption, that rebasing 1.x on 0.x / pushing into 1.x would be > easier. > >>> Based on outstanding PRs/Patches in conjunction with release cadence > >>> there > >>> will be more 0.x releases planned. Until we reached the point where the > >>> first 1.x release is in sight, I think (2) makes sense just from > >>> minimizing > >>> impedance where the majority of effort will occur (new/updated > >>> extensions) > >>> and then switching to (1) when we are scheduling 1.x as next (exclusive > >>> of > >>> any patch builds). This seems to work out when I try to reason about > it, > >>> but admittedly, am coming at this heavily from my own anecdotal > >>> perspective > >>> given my flow of reviewing. > >>> > >>> Matt, excellent points to consider. > >>> > >>> Do not want to go too much on a tangent from the current conversation, > >>> but > >>> I think we need to harness automation as much as possible. Not sure > >>> Travis > >>> can do this or do so easily (short of two PRs) and this may arguably > >>> shift > >>> things in favor of patches and the model that the other ASF projects > >>> utilize with buildbot. Getting as much done asynchronously for us is > >>> obviously important but we also have to strive to avoid a contrib > process > >>> that is too cumbersome as well. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Matt Burgess <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > I like option 1 as well. > >>> > > >>> > In the case where a fix is to be put into both branches, will the > >>> developer > >>> > be responsible for issuing 2 PRs / patches, one against each branch? > >>> This > >>> > would help in the case that the PR/patch against 0.x won't merge > >>> cleanly > >>> > into master; however the reviewer(s) would need to make sure there > >>> were no > >>> > breaking changes as a result of the manual merge to master. An > >>> alternative > >>> > is that the reviewer(s) do the forward-port, which I don't think is a > >>> good > >>> > idea. However the reviewer would need to make sure the PR(s) are > >>> against > >>> > the correct branch. For example, all current PRs would need to be > >>> > "backported" to the new 0.x branch. > >>> > > >>> > Also, I would think the PRs/patches need to be merged at the same > time > >>> (or > >>> > soon), to avoid regressions (i.e. a bug fix going into 0.x but > getting > >>> > forgotten/missed for 1.x). > >>> > > >>> > Thoughts? Thanks, > >>> > Matt > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > 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 > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> > > >> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > >> > > >>>>> > >>> > > >> > > >>> > >>> > > >> > > >>> > >>> > > >> > > >> > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > >
