Hi all,

I'd like to revive this discussion again.

Personally, I am now working with git for a few years and almost all customer and company related projects have moved to git over time. In the beginning, I found git complicated and less straight forward, a bit like Adrian mentioned in [1]. But once I have understood the main principles and get used to it, I won't like to switch back to svn ever since.

In my opinion, using git would make things much easier for collaboration. Taher thoroughly described them in the inital thread message.

An important point for me would be that we could prevent premature commits just to get things to be tested. Features which take some time to be worked on or tested can be in separate branches which can be updated with the main branch constantly.

So, from my point of view, we should again have a disussion and/or vote to see if the overall opinions have changed and if we could move to git.



[1] http://markmail.org/message/m4z5b5qevqx7n6u7

Am 24.10.15 um 10:23 schrieb Taher Alkhateeb:
Hello Everyone,

I refer to the discussion about moving to git initiated by Hans Bakker back in 
April. After a long, long discussion followed by a vote the community agreed 
that we should develop a more elaborate and formal workflow to vote on, as the 
initial vote was not detailed enough. Based on that, I have proposed a workflow 
to see if people are interested in it. But the topic just slowly died out.

The links to both threads are listed below. I understand that there was a lot 
of interest in the community as the thread was really long. I would like to 
revive the discussion and see if people are still interested in implementing / 
amending the proposed workflow if they find it appealing.

discussion and vote thread : 

workflow proposition thread : 

Taher Alkhateeb
----- Original Message -----

From: "Taher Alkhateeb" <slidingfilame...@gmail.com>
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June, 2015 5:25:31 PM
Subject: Re: git commit workflow for ofbiz

Hi Jacques,

Very good read, thank you for sharing.

The person who wrote complaining about gitflow (I think Adam Ruka) makes a good point. He 
prefers linear to branched history. I do not mind branched history myself as I know how 
to navigate it but to each his own. Either way, The workflow can be accomplished the way 
he suggested by rebasing rather than merging the history and making a few other changes 
like dropping "develop". It is up to community to decide, and git is flexible 
enough to accommodate any model.

Taher Alkhateeb

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jacques Le Roux" <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, 24 June, 2015 4:19:42 PM
Subject: Re: git commit workflow for ofbiz

Le 24/06/2015 14:06, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
If you get a chance to read these articles I highly recommend them

Of course don't miss 




Le 12/05/2015 19:28, Adam Heath a écrit :
Nice. This is quite thorough. There is an option missing. SVN committers who 
use git offline. In this case, their changes can be published as
primary SVN branches, for collaboration.. See OFBIZ-6271 in JIRA, and as an SVN 
branch, for an example.

I've read through most of what follows, and am in agreement, but I'm dealing 
with hardware problems, so I need to let it sink in first.

On 05/12/2015 04:43 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote:
Hi everyone,

This email refers to the thread for voting to move to git (link at bottom) in 
which the vote decision was to delay and elaborate on the workflow
first. I am not well versed in ASF guidelines and appreciate any help and 
feedback and also please note some of the below is my opinion and not
necessarily 100% factual.

## First, identified problems

1. patches can quickly be outdated if not applied quickly
2. big patches are hard to audit and not desired nor preferred and It is hard 
to break big patches to smaller ones because if any of those patches
is outdated or modified then everything needs to be re-patched
3. to collaborate with other people (non-committers) freely on big features, we 
need a separate branch. On svn this is lengthy and heavily
controlled. If we create a git repository then we need to constantly update 
from svn and merge . Another solution is to clone the ofbiz read-only
git repository but then there are some patch issues to convert them to clean 
svn patches (I faced a few including things like white space)
4. a lot of _local_ offline freedom to branch, merge, commit, share and 
experiment cannot be easily done without initiating a local git repository
which triggers the other problems identified above.
6. There are too many public branches in the repositoy. Some are not active nor 
complete and quite old

## Second, how does git provide solutions

So, adopting git in relation to the above mentioned problems solves them as 

1. even if a patch gets outdated, I can easily recreate it by switching to a 
branch that I created and has the work (e.g. OFBIZ-12345), merging
everything from trunk and re-patching
2. to allow for proper feedback by community, a pull request can replace a big 
patch and that request can hold an X amount of commits each with
its own message and diff details. If changes happen to any of the commits, then 
reconciling that into the code base is minor, you just branch
again, do it, and merge. Furthermore, I suggest to follow the guidelines which 
recommend rebasing before pushing to a shared repository to keep a
nice linear history as much as possible as shown here -> 
3. large features can be done in a remote repository in github or bitbucket 
with pull requests when complete and ready for review.
4. the issue is immediately solved with git which is not only local but much, 
much faster
6. We do not need to pollute the main repository with branches if we decide on 
a distributed model like git with remote repositories to contribute
to the project with pull requests.

## Third, proposed workflow

I will make a distinction between small features / bug fixes and large features.

### small features

Small features follow the exact same workflow that currently exists in svn. You 
do your work, diff it, and attach the patch to a JIRA and request
a commit from one of the committers.

### large features

For large features usually multiple people need to collaborate on a separate 
branch. Here is where git shines and the distributed model kicks in:
1. A JIRA is created for a large feature
2. The team (not necessarily having a committer) creates a remote repository 
which itself may have many branches with the master branch having all
the work agreed upon and merged (actually, rebased)
3. The collaboration for this branch happens in the JIRA including discussions, 
comments, and even links to the commits etc ...
4. A request is made to a committer to make a pull request from the repository 
after reaching a certain milestone with consensus from the
community of course
5. Here, for extra safety, the branch model may have a trunk and a develop 
branches. Everything is pulled to the develop branch and trickles down
to the master branch after thorough and proper testing.

The above workflow can also adhere to the now famous Vincent Driessen git 
branching model found here ->

I am not sure whether this proposal is enough or correct so I appreciate your 
guidance and feedback to fix whatever needs fixing.

Taher Alkhateeb

original voting thread:

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to