----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kamil Paral" <kpa...@redhat.com> > To: "Fedora QA Development" <qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 4:03:40 PM > Subject: gitflow and branch naming conventions > > So, we're going the gitflow way [1][2]. However, when I looked at our > bitbucket repositories today, only the libtaskotron branch uses 'develop' > branch, all other projects use only 'master' branch - even taskotron-trigger > or task-rpmlint. Does it mean we use gitflow only for libtaskotron? Or is it > a repo author's choice? I'm a bit afraid it's going to be chaos - you'll > need to inspect available branches every time to decide against which branch > to base a patch or into which branch to commit. > > I wonder, could we use gitflow but drop the idea of misusing 'master' branch > name for something else than usual? > > Because that's the main grievance I have against gitflow, otherwise it's a > neat workflow. I believe gitflow should have never used master for something > else, it should have used 'stable' branch instead for stable releases (i.e. > 'gitflow/master' should have been 'traditional/stable' and 'gitflow/develop' > should have been 'traditional/master'). All the tools (and most of the > users) expect 'master' to be the main development branch. Git init creates > master by default. Git clone checks out master by default. Github/Bitbucket > displays master by default. Arcanist merges to master by default. Users > clone and send patches against master by default. Usually you can adjust the > tools, but what's the benefit? Why all the mess? I simply don't get it. > (Also notice people criticizing it under one of the most famous blogposts > [3] and offering the same suggestions as I do). >
I am not against the idea but just a note, we'd need to change this for projects that have been using gitflow/develop style branch (blockerbugs) as well. Thanks, Martin > So, if we use gitflow with traditional master meaning, and stable branch for > stable releases, I see it as a win-win. Regardless whether that particular > repo uses gitflow or not, you known what branch to work with automatically. > You don't need to change configuration in your tools. Everything works, and > you get the benefits. > > If you have installed the gitflow RPM package (it adds the "git flow" > subcommand), it asks you initially what naming conventions you like to use. > So if you like that tool, there's no problem using it with the traditional > 'master' meaning. > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tflink/taskotron_contribution_guide > [2] http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > [3] http://jeffkreeftmeijer.com/2010/why-arent-you-using-git-flow/ > _______________________________________________ > qa-devel mailing list > qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel > _______________________________________________ qa-devel mailing list qa-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/qa-devel