My primary concerns are: 1) Holding up work on develop while waiting for the release to be finalized (voted, etc). It's not clear to me if the current approach supports this if we need to create a RC2. 2) Users trying to get a specific version of Apache NiFi. If the branches were named according to their release version, it's very easy for them to identify the branch they care about.
I thought when we were setting everything up initially we decided to practice gitflow [1]. I don't think we've done this as describe. I'm not suggesting that we have to, there are certainly modified approaches that can scratch the itch. Just wanted to make sure the larger concerns are handled. [1] https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/gitflow-workflow On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > The release process does generate a tag that is named after the version. > Does that not quite scratch the itch? > > Thanks > Joe > On Mar 12, 2015 8:07 AM, "Dan Bress" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Matt, > > I back the idea of of naming the release branch by the name of the > > major/minor numbers(in this case 0.0). Mainly so if after 0.0.2 gets > > released and we need to fix a bug and call it 0.0.3, we could reuse the > 0.0 > > release branch and not have to create a new one. > > > > Dan Bress > > Software Engineer > > ONYX Consulting Services > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Matt Gilman <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 8:39 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Release branch workflow business > > > > Just wanted to confirm what was done when the RC was cut for 0.0.2. It > > appears that a branch was created for the release (NIFI-402-RC1). Does > this > > mean it's ok for Dan and others to commit to develop for features going > > into 0.1.0 (or whatever our next release after 0.0.2 will be)? > > > > Any issues discovered with the RC for 0.0.2 should be addressed in that > > branch and develop. Pretty sure this was the agreed upon workflow we > > discussed initially. If this is accurate can I request naming the release > > branches according to their version going forward? This may help avoid > some > > confusion. > > > > If my assumptions are not accurate or there's some aspect of the release > > process that changes this please let me know. > > > > Matt > > > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Dan > > > > > > For my own part I should be able to start the party this week. Seemed > > non > > > controversial to kick it off so you're right I think. > > > > > > As for the branch yes it does work like you suggest. Will take a > closer > > > look tomorrow. > > > > > > I will check the status of tickets as well. We really need some sort > of > > > rough roadmap up. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Joe > > > On Mar 8, 2015 10:14 AM, "Dan Bress" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Joe and all, > > > > > > > > What is your plan/process for creating release branches to do the > > > 0.0.2 > > > > release(and future releases) in? I was under the impression that you > > > would > > > > want to do this as soon as all of the 0.0.2 tickets are closed(which > I > > > > thought I heard has happened). If all the 0.0.2 tickets are > complete, > > > I'd > > > > recommend making a branch to do the release in so that we can begin > > > > integrating any of the 0.1.0 features in develop. I'm recommending > > from > > > a > > > > somewhat selfish standpoint so that the component documentation > > feature I > > > > worked on can be integrated before more changes happen in develop > that > > > > might cause the merge to be problematic. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dan Bress > > > > Software Engineer > > > > ONYX Consulting Services > > > > > > > > > >
