On ti, 11 loka 2016, Petr Vobornik wrote:
On 10/11/2016 03:50 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On ti, 11 loka 2016, Petr Vobornik wrote:
Hi List,

we discussed locally a proposal about creating a feature branch for each
sub-team effort in our main git. Currently it would be for the 4 ongoing
refactoring efforts + Simo's work

It will allow each developer to create a pull request against the
feature branch and thus it will enable iterative development by multiple
devs without affecting other sub-teams. When the feature(refactoring) is
finished, the branch would be rebased on master and merged there. Note:
rebases can be done as needed - e.g. when other subteam finishes its

1. Upstream git repo would be full of such branches.
- This can be mitigated by deleting the feature branches when their are
released or merged(up to discussion)
Don't put them in the upstream git repo. Let people decide where they
want to have them -- all Fedora contributors have access to
fedorapeople.org git hosting and there is github one button click
('Clone') away from the github mirror.

It is not a problem to keep a separate git branch published this way.

It is not a matter of making the code public. That can be done easily as
you write. Other alternative is own branch in GitHub fork.

May be I misunderstand you -- if you just want people to propose merge
requests on github with pre-defined names, then that's just fine.

Basically it's all about review.

Example use case: More than 1 devs are working on a same big effort.
This effort will probably consists of 10s of commits. The big effort is
divided into smaller ones which can be implemented and reviewed
separately. In our previous mode, the sub task would be merged to master
it is reviewed and ACKed. But now we cannot do that. We want to merge
the whole big task at once when it is finishes and tested.

One dev could probably have a branch on personal fork of FreeIPA on
GitHub which would work as the feature branch. Other team members would
create pull requests against it.

In such case we would loose mail notifications and would have to extend
our tooling because ipatool can use only one upstream on push.
So I still think this is not a problem. If people can agree which git
repo clone will be primary one and submit merge requests against it,
then there is no problem in having that git repo's branch to be
submitted as the pull request against the main git repo. This way you'll
get all the changes seen at the pull request sync time.

/ Alexander Bokovoy

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to