Just dropping in to second the GitFlow strategy. I think it fits quite well with what we want to do.
On 2024/01/17 00:17:23 Stepheny Perez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I propose we discuss and stick to a version control management practice > across all SDAP repos moving forward. Currently, our repos are all using > different branching strategies which makes development and release management > difficult. > > I've personally used > [GitFlow](https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/gitflow-workflow) > extensively, and have found it to work well and can easily integrate with > CI/CD. However, the page I linked above seems to indicate this is an older > strategy and not in line with best practices. Alternatively, we can explore > [trunk-based > development](https://www.atlassian.com/continuous-delivery/continuous-integration/trunk-based-development), > which seems straightforward enough. > > If we were to use something like GitFlow, that might look something like this > for SDAP: > > - `main` branch: contains the latest released code. > - `release/*` branch: contains candidate release code. PR and merge into > `main` upon release. > - `develop` branch: contains completed features ready to be pulled into next > release > - `feature/SDAP-xxx` branch: Feature branch containing changes needed to > accomplish SDAP-xxx ticket. PR and merge into `develop` branch. > > The most important thing is that we are consistent with whatever strategy we > choose across all SDAP repos. Does anyone have any input as to which strategy > might suit SDAP best? > > Stepheny >
