[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1154?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17207485#comment-17207485
]
Aleksandar Vidakovic commented on FINERACT-1154:
------------------------------------------------
[~ptuomola] I think there is no formal rule established for back-porting (but
maybe [~vorburger] knows more about that); so I guess we can replace the
existing conventions with whatever is best suited. While I'm all for your
approach in terms of keeping every change accounted for I'm a little more
skeptical concerning rebase... re-writing history (which it basically is) could
make life really difficult, especially with a bigger audience. Disclaimer: not
an expert on rebase.
Personally Git Flow works very well for me (I realize that not everyone is a
big fan). The downside is that we have to be all ready with our contributions
for that release at a certain point in time. So not sure if that would be a
viable approach (disclaimer: I'm using Git Flow in relatively small teams up to
5 devs).
And finally: maybe we can get some inspiration here:
https://martinfowler.com/articles/branching-patterns.html
> Git branch strategy is wrong, use tags instead
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FINERACT-1154
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1154
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Michael Vorburger
> Assignee: Petri Tuomola
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.5.0
>
>
> It seems wrong to me that we have 20 open branches (on
> https://github.com/apache/fineract/branches), including for the just released
> 1.4.0. IMHO a 1.4.0 should be a tag not a branch, and there could be a branch
> named 1.4.x instead - if anyone actually wanted to maintain that (which I
> doubt anyone does).
> [~aleks], [~ptuomola] or anyone else reading along here, do you agree?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
