On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 09:37, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: > >> >> On Apr 2, 2011, at 7:31 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: >> >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> Since we're moving to git / GitHub, it's time to re-evaluate the >>> development / git usage strategy. >>> >>> = Short version: >>> >>> 1/ Where do developers commit: >>> A. Always in the master branch >>> B. In feature branches in the official repo, merged into the master >>> branch when ready >>> C. In their personal forks, requesting pulls in the official repo with a >>> mandatory code review from another developer >> >> I've heard people do C but I don't like too much for the following reasons: >> * It means finding a developer to review every time which IMO is going to >> either be very hard to do or that developer will simply approve it without >> really reviewing the code >> * It means the master branch will be slow to have the latest changes which >> means our CI tests won't run as often on them (only close to release dates) >> which is bad and will make code integration harder >> * Side note: Even though Git encourages developers to keep their work >> locally without sharing them we should **NOT** do this and developers should >> continue to commit every day and not keep code on their machines. This >> prevents code integration and code reviews. It's easy to casually review 15 >> lines of code, it's very hard to review 300 lines of code! >> * Since mails (and diff mails) will continue to be sent code reviews will >> still be done as before. This is lazy code reviewing and is IMO much better >> than forced code reviews which I don't see working. It would be a good >> strategy if we were building a software to send man to Mars for example but >> for XWiki I favor a lazy code reviewing approach (what we've been doing). >> >>> 2/ How to move code from development to release: >>> A. Commit and release from the master branch >>> B. Develop in feature branches, merge them in the master when ready, >>> release from master >>> C. Develop in feature branches, merge them in a development branch >>> (master) for polishing, merge them in a release branch when done-done >>> D. Develop in feature branches, merge them often in the development >>> branch (master) for snapshot testing, move into the stabilization >>> (pre-release) branch for polishing, move into the release branch when >>> done-done. >>> E. Develop in feature branches, merge them in a development branch for >>> snapshot testing, move into a stabilization branch for the Next release, >>> which becomes the Current release branch after the previous release is >>> done, and which becomes a Maintenance branch after the new release is >>> performed. Only bugfixes go in the Current release branch. >>> >>> I vote 1C and 2D. >> >> I vote for doing http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > > One detail. I think I'd prefer to have master = develop branch and have a > stable branch.
+1 > > The reason is to make people discover the latest changes first. > > Thanks > -Vincent > >>> = Long version >>> >>> The common practice with Subversion is to have as few branches as >>> possible, usually a trunk and a few maintenance branches, or >>> development+stable+maintenance. This is a consequence of the perceived >>> difficulty of merging changes between branches in svn, and the high cost >>> of keeping multiple branches checked out. >>> >>> On the other hand, the git philosophy is to use branches as much as >>> possible. Two core elements are "feature branches" and "forks". >>> >>> A feature branch is a branch where one feature is being developed, >>> separated from the trunk and all the other features. While working on >>> it, the developer "rebases" the branch on top of the trunk to keep his >>> branch up to date with the trunk, and at the end "merges" the feature >>> branch into the trunk. This way in-development features are kept out of >>> the main trunk, but still allowing changes to be committed someplace >>> public (no local uncommitted code anymore). >>> >>> A central element of GitHub is the ability to "fork" a repository. This >>> means that a user clones a project in a personal repository where he can >>> commit changes. He can later ask the maintainer of the original to >>> "pull" those changes back into the original repository. This is the >>> preferred way of contributing patches on GitHub. >>> >>> >>> >>> == Commit/Development-related strategies >>> >>> A. One central repository, one trunk (subversion-like) >>> >>> Developers clone the official trunks repository, prepare commits >>> locally, then push back to the official repository. It's the same >>> strategy that we're using now, except that we can also have an offline >>> local repository. >>> >>> >>> B. One central repository, feature branches >>> >>> Developers clone the official trunks repository, prepare commits locally >>> in feature branches, then push back to the official repository in >>> feature branches as well. When a feature is considered stable, it is >>> merged into the master branch. Small bugfixes and improvements go >>> directly in the master branch. >>> >>> B1. Also use specific helper branches >>> >>> Security fixes also go into a "security" branch so that users can >>> cherry-pick them into older tags to build a custom patched version. >>> >>> Retired features can go into a "retired" branch so that users can >>> re-include that feature in a custom build if they need it. >>> >>> >>> C. One aggregated repository, pulling from developers >>> >>> Developers fork the official repositories, work on their fork (in >>> feature branches as well), then make pull requests for integrating their >>> work into the trunk. The rule would be that another developer has to do >>> the pull after a code review (mandatory code reviews). This means more >>> bugs spotted before committing, but also more work/time needed from the >>> committers. >>> >>> We can relax the rule so that obvious bugfixes can be pulled by the same >>> developer making the pull request. >>> >>> >>> Personally, I prefer C, since it ensures better quality since at least >>> two eyes see each line of code. >> >> I don't like it much because it means less integration and integration at >> the last minute. I prefer 15 pair of eyes than 2 pair of eyes. >> >> I like the idea of having a "develop" branch which is for the future release >> where all do developer push to it. They can have temporary feature branches >> but these need to be as temporary as possible and push asap to the "develop" >> branch. The idea is that of CI which has to be done ASAP. This is really >> really key. >> >>> == Integration/Release-related strategies >>> >>> Currently, we're developing on the trunk, and we're releasing from it >>> during short breaks from live development. >> >> Except for RCs >> >>> This is highly dangerous, and >>> imposes a certain rhythm, with fast bursts of development right after a >>> release, and imposed slowdown as the next release approaches (no work on >>> new features after the last milestone). >> >> Actually it's highly dangerous only if developers don't provide tests (which >> is what is happening right now in lots of cases for different reasons). This >> is what we need to fight. Providing isolation has never been a solution. >> It's quite the opposite. It's bad and cost way more when you need to >> integrate your work. >> >> It's funny how with git we seem to forget all the development best practices >> we've learnt over the years. I find myself going back to 2000, that was the >> last time I've had this kind of discussion ;) >> >>> Short releases from a development branch is inline with agile >>> development, but personally I find it too dangerous. >>> >>> Most big projects always keep the main development at least one branch >>> away from the release branch. >>> >>> One example is the Linux kernel. While a kernel release lasts about 3 >>> months, like our own releases, almost all of the code that goes into a >>> release has been developed before the merge window opens. This means >>> that after a kernel version is released, Linus opens a two-weeks merge >>> window during which he accepts pull requests for existing, working, >>> complete code. The next ~10 weeks are spent testing the new kernel and >>> integrating bugfixes, while developers prepare the features for the next >>> kernel version. This ensures that a released kernel has as few bugs as >>> possible. They can afford to do that since there are hundreds or >>> thousands of contributors. Still, this is entirely opposite to our way >>> of working: after a release we barely start writing the code to go in >>> the new release, and we get code in at the last minute (especially me). >> >> I definitely don't like to be compared to the linux kernel and wouldn't like >> to be like them. I also think the comparison is not correct. >> >> I really dislike this way of working, pushing integration to the end. I'm >> against working in this manner. >> >>> Another example that I'd like to present is the new proposed strategy >>> for Mozilla Firefox: >>> http://mozilla.github.com/process-releases/draft/development_overview/ >>> Basically, the propose using 4 branches, from development to release, >>> where code enters on the lowest branch, and moves up towards a release >>> as it stabilizes and becomes release-ready. They use 6-weeks release >>> cycles, and only stable-enough features get promoted from one branch to >>> the next when a new cycle starts. This process ensures quality as well. >> >> IMO we only need 1 develop branch + very temporary feature branches (only >> when needed for complex features). >> >> What we do need to work on is more testable code and more tests. >> >>> I'd like to move closer to one of these two strategies, so that our >>> releases are more polished. The mechanism for ensuring quality that >>> we're currently using is to have an "investigation" phase during the >>> previous release, which is supposed to help define the exact goals, so >>> that during the current release the development should go smoothly >>> towards that "idea goal". Unfortunately, this doesn't work that well. >>> Without the code in place, investigations may miss important >>> details/limitations that will shift the development in another >>> direction. Or it can happen that the time is too short to fully >>> implement something, so we can either release a very "in progress" >>> feature, or decide near the end that it's not enough time to implement >>> everything and focus on polishing what's already available to have a >>> "partial" feature, but polished enough not to reek of low quality. >>> >>> The main problem here is that we're mixing feature- and time-based >>> releases, with mandatory features that must find their way into a >>> release, and a fixed deadline to make the release. This means that >>> features have 8-10 weeks to be fully implemented, polished, tested, >>> validated. And that doesn't always happen. >>> >>> So, here are some possible integration strategies: >>> >>> A. Master development (like now) >>> >>> All development is done in the master branch, from which we branch a few >>> hours/days before the release, so that the master remains clear for >>> development. >>> >>> B. Feature branches >>> >>> All new feature development is done in a separate branch for each >>> feature, and we merge it in the trunk once it's considered done (or very >>> close). When a release date comes, we release with the completed >>> features, whatever those are. We don't force a merge of an incomplete >>> feature just because it's in the roadmap if it's not stable enough. >>> >>> C. Feature+Development+Release branches >>> >>> All development is done in feature branches, but they get merged on the >>> master branch more often to have test builds; the release branch is >>> separate and it integrates features when they are considered ready. This >>> has the advantage over B. that automated builds expose all the >>> development features. >>> >>> D. Feature+Development+Stable+Release branches >>> >>> This is similar to the new Mozilla strategy. Developers merge their work >>> in the Development branch very often. Users and other developers can >>> contribute here as well, and preview the upcoming features. When they >>> are close to finalization, they are also merged to the stable branch, >>> where UX, QA and feature owners can test and improve the feature, >>> preparing it for release. Once it's considered ready, it is merged into >>> the release branch, where QA does a final thorough test. Releases happen >>> from this branch. >>> >>> E. Feature+Development+Next+Release >>> >>> This is similar to D, with the exception that done features go into the >>> next release, while the current release is staging. When the release is >>> done, Release moves into Bugfix, Next becomes Release, and we create a >>> new Next branch and start pulling in it. This would work well if we had >>> very short release cycles (2 weeks), but it's not worth the effort for >>> our current 3-month releases, since a feature would stagnate too much >>> before being released. And it would also work if we had more beta testers. >>> >>> >>> We can also impose windows, like 2-4 weeks for a feature to move into >>> the next branch. >>> >>> We could also make faster releases, skipping milestones. and going to 6 >>> week releases. >>> >>> This means that it would take longer for a feature to make its way from >>> idea to release. One release for investigation, one or more for the main >>> development, and one for integration and stabilization. >>> >>> But this also means that releases will be more solid, polished, with >>> less bugs, and closer to the user needs. >>> >>> >>> Personally I prefer option D, although it's a bit too much overkill with >>> our current limited manpower. We need more contributors and committers! >> >> This I agree :) >> >>> As for a change strategy, we can continue the way we're doing now, >>> gradually switching to feature branches and release/pre-release branches >>> during the following release. >> >> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ sounds like a >> reasonable, in-between, strategy. >> >> WDYT? >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >> PS: It seems my worry about using git is starting to materialize: it's that >> developers develop stuff on their own repo locally without pushing fast >> enough every day (several times per day), thus delaying integration to the >> last moment. If this happens then the whole git move would have been very >> bad for xwiki. I hope we're not going there. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
