----- Original Message ----- > Hi Pulp developers! I have just created our 2.5.x branches for us to > work in. Below, I will list each of our branches of importance, and what > they are for. Feel free to ask questions if you need clarification! > > 2.4-testing > This branch is currently where all 2.4.1 bugs should be branched from > and merged into. Currently there are only two outstanding bugs for this > release. After you merge into this branch, you must merge it all the way > forward. For this branch, this is a lot of merging. You must merge > 2.4-testing into 2.4-dev. Then you must merge 2.4-dev into 2.5-testing. > Then you must merge 2.5-testing into 2.5-dev. Then you must merge > 2.5-dev into master. This will prevent us from making a 2.4.1 release > with a bug fix that is not present in 2.5.0 or master. Got it? ☺
This sound like a lot of merging. > > 2.4-dev > This branch is still ongoing for our 2.4.z (where z > 2) release stream. > Any bugs you work on that are for a 2.4.z (z > 2) release should branch > from here, and merge into here. Again, you must merge this forward to > all future releases. Merge 2.4-dev into 2.5-testing. Then you must merge > 2.5-testing into 2.5-dev. Then you must merge 2.5-dev into master. > > 2.5-testing > This branch is where all 2.5.0 bugs should be branched from and merged > into. Pay attention to the target release on the bugs you are working > on. Today, many of them will be moved to 2.5.1. Those should not be > merged into here. You must merge forward these commits to all future > releases. Merge 2.5-testing into 2.5-dev. Then you must merge 2.5-dev > into master. > > 2.5-dev > This branch is where all 2.5.z (z > 0) bugs should be branch from and > merged into. All commits on this branch must be merged forward to master. How one figures out what should go to the master and what to 2.5? > > master > This branch is for new feature development. Any work you are doing that > adds a new feature or changes an API must be branched from and merged > into master. Any reason why keeping that many branches in place? I'm might miss something, but creating a branch per release, once the release is more or less feature complete and cherry-picking additional fixes to it seem more natural to me. What about the other cases, where something get's fixed in 2.5-dev first and additionally decided it should go back to 2.4-testing as well. I'm of course not core Pulp developer, but I think having more simpler branching schema makes it easier for semi-end users to figure out what's going on. > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list _______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
