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 . 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.
Thanks, Michael  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 : http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/ldo77qz34kte4gat?q=move+to+git+from:%22Hans+Bakker%22+list:org.apache.ofbiz.dev&page=1 workflow proposition thread : http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/nkthnbsgt37orynu?q=git+commit+workflow Taher Alkhateeb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Taher Alkhateeb" <slidingfilame...@gmail.com> To: email@example.com 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: firstname.lastname@example.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 http://www.alwaysagileconsulting.com/organisation-pattern-trunk-based-development/Of course don't miss http://www.alwaysagileconsulting.com/organisation-antipattern-release-feature-branching/ Jacqueshttp://endoflineblog.com/gitflow-considered-harmful http://endoflineblog.com/follow-up-to-gitflow-considered-harmful Jacques 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 follows: 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 -> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/docs/committer-practices.html 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 -> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ 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: http://ofbiz.markmail.org/search/?q=move%20to%20git#query:move%20to%20git+page:1+mid:p62ofojcbb3oyoi4+state:results
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature