By "merge-based workflow", this is referring to branch development and merging? I don't see much issue with allowing a rebase-based workflow if we're okay with allowing force-push on feature branches. If anything, the next step would be disallowing merge-based workflows and mandating rebases for a clean linear history, but it sounds like we'd rather not for now.
Also, to state the obvious, for trunk->branch-2->etc backports, I'd expect us to be doing git cherry-picks. I think it'd be good to disable force-push for the main branches as Arpit recommends, we could include that in the VOTE as well. Thanks, Andrew On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Arpit Agarwal <aagar...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > If by very same workflow you mean a merge-based workflow that would be fine > to call out in the vote proposal. > > Separately, do we want to disable force push for version branches > (branch-x) and point release branches (branch-x.y) in addition to trunk? > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Alejandro Abdelnur <tuc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I would say we can first move to git and keep the very same workflow we > > have today, then we can evolve it. > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Arpit Agarwal <aagar...@hortonworks.com> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 to voting on specific workflow(s). > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > If we are to start a vote thread, will people prefer a vote thread > that > > > > includes potential workflows as well? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Karthik Kambatla <ka...@cloudera.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your opinions, everyone. Looks like most people are for > > the > > > > > change and no one is against it. Let me start a vote for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Tsuyoshi OZAWA < > > > ozawa.tsuyo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Thank you for supplementation, Andrew. Yes, we should go step by > > step > > > > >> and let's discuss review workflows on a another thread. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> - Tsuyoshi > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Andrew Wang < > > andrew.w...@cloudera.com > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > I think we should take things one step at a time. Switching to > git > > > > >> > definitely opens up the possibility for better review workflows, > > but > > > > we > > > > >> can > > > > >> > discuss that on a different thread. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > A few different people have also mentioned Gerrit, so that'd be > in > > > the > > > > >> > running along with Github (and I guess ReviewBoard). > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > >> > Andrew > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Tsuyoshi OZAWA < > > > > >> ozawa.tsuyo...@gmail.com> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Thank you for great suggestion, Karthik. +1(non-binding) to use > > > git. > > > > >> >> I'm also using private git repository. > > > > >> >> Additionally, I have one question. Will we accept github-based > > > > >> >> development like Apache Spark? IHMO, it allow us to leverage > > Hadoop > > > > >> >> development, because the cost of sending pull request is very > low > > > and > > > > >> >> its review board is great. One concern is that the development > > > > >> >> workflow can change and it can confuse us. What do you think? > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Thanks, > > > > >> >> - Tsuyoshi > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Karthik Kambatla < > > > ka...@cloudera.com > > > > > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > Hi folks, > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > From what I hear, a lot of devs use the git mirror for > > > > >> >> development/reviews > > > > >> >> > and use subversion primarily for checking code in. I was > > > wondering > > > > >> if it > > > > >> >> > would make more sense just to move to git. In addition to > > > > subjective > > > > >> >> liking > > > > >> >> > of git, I see the following advantages in our workflow: > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > 1. Feature branches - it becomes easier to work on them > and > > > keep > > > > >> >> > rebasing against the latest trunk. > > > > >> >> > 2. Cherry-picks between branches automatically ensures the > > > exact > > > > >> same > > > > >> >> > commit message and tracks the lineage as well. > > > > >> >> > 3. When cutting new branches and/or updating maven > versions > > > > etc., > > > > >> it > > > > >> >> > allows doing all the work locally before pushing it to the > > > main > > > > >> >> branch. > > > > >> >> > 4. Opens us up to potentially using other code-review > tools. > > > > >> (Gerrit?) > > > > >> >> > 5. It is just more convenient. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > I am sure this was brought up before in different > capacities. I > > > > >> believe > > > > >> >> the > > > > >> >> > support for git in ASF is healthy now and several downstream > > > > projects > > > > >> >> have > > > > >> >> > moved. Again, from what I hear, ASF INFRA folks make the > > > migration > > > > >> >> process > > > > >> >> > fairly easy. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > What do you all think? > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks > > > > >> >> > Karthik > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> -- > > > > >> >> - Tsuyoshi > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> - Tsuyoshi > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or > entity > > to > > > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > > > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the > reader > > > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > > that > > > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > > > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > > > received this communication in error, please contact the sender > > immediately > > > and delete it from your system. Thank You. > > > > > > > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You. >
