On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 04:14:36PM +0100, Nick Wellnhofer wrote: > What's the preferred workflow when creating branches for new features?
I'm pretty sure there aren't any specific recommendations in the ASF docs regarding branching, so we get to establish our own conventions. The one ASF-wide principle we should take into account is that large-scale offline development is discouraged as community-unfriendly, since large code drops are hard to review, hard to grok, and limit community input. Another thing to bear in mind is that while the ASF does net yet offer Git as an official option for version control, there is an "experimental" pilot project underway, and it seems likely that Git will become an option for us at some point next year. Given the enthusiasm of several of our community members for Git, I imagine we will switch -- and so we should try to design our branching conventions with that in mind. FWIW, I've seen a lot of good stuff go by on the Perl 5 Porters mailing list about workflows, and I think we would benefit from studying what they have done. > Simply create a branch named LUCY-nnn, according to the JIRA issue > number? Good plan. :) In some cases, there may need to be more than one feature branch; indeed under Git, I expect that we will want to encourage that development take place on short-lived feature branches. To accommodate multiple branches, we may need to append a descriptive name onto the issue identifier. Following this convention, the feature branch I worked on a while back would have been named "LUCY-142-clownfish_lemon" instead of "clownfish_lemon". Marvin Humphrey
