This is a better description of how we should be managing code and git branches than I have every seen: http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ <http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/> It includes the use of develop, a stable master branch, and hotfixes to master. I also like more than one release branch because I imagine once we support two versions of Elasticsearch or Spark that require code changes, a branch is the natural way to assemble the code.
The post is worth a read and discussion. My other Apache git based project could use this approach too. In this case I’m only proposing that major bug fixes (hotfixes) be allowed into master and be tagged. The post gives good rationale for this. On Nov 25, 2016, at 11:30 PM, Paul-Armand Verhaegen <[email protected]> wrote: Great proposal. I certainly agree with the needs in the community and associated benefits for fast bug fixes in master. If I may suggest to hotfix against master with merge towards development. Merges can be cumbersome when dev and master diverge. It can become very difficult if the fixes (from dev) cannot be applied to master, and additional commits need to be made, that has messed up my head before. Although more or less the same work, I believe it to be less of an issue if we end up messing up dev. I'm also in favor of using a well-documented approach such as gitflow, since I often forget the exact workflows of different projects. > On 25 Nov 2016, at 18:57, Pat Ferrel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Our dev process includes edge/snapshot code being kept in the develop branch > until release time. I like this process because it allows us to keep master > clean and stable. So imagine that we have a major bug fix. To get this to > users we could do a release but this can’t happen soon enough if a user has > discovered it and already needs the fix. We could point to a commit in > develop but that branch is a little wild until release time. > > I’d like to propose we allow some commits to master, to fix critical bugs, > and tag these with the Jira # describing the bug. The fix would also go in > develop so at merge time there would be nothing to merge. > > At present we have a source only release so this would work fairly well, even > with a binary release it would be safer and easier to document than > suggesting a build of the develop branch. > > Opinions? If no one objects there was a critical bug fixed recently and I’ll > do the above to get the fix in master.
