Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
r our >>> > own community. For me that is what I'm pushing back on. Why is that >>> > helpful for *this* apache nifi community? Having done the release >>> > management gig a couple times now I am not seeing the value add for >>> > *this* project. There too we must be clear about how these models can >>> > be applied to generating value apache releases. >>> > >>> > I am open minded to this having value. That is why i was supportive >>> > of the idea back in Nov/Dec. But over the past 8 months or so I've >>> > only seen it as an 'extra step' for an already difficult RM task and >>> > as something that creates confusion. >>> > >>> > So for me, this is an easy discussion if we can clearly articulate >>> > value of the master/develop distinction. >>> > >>> > Thanks >>> > Joe >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Adam Taft wrote: >>> > > The default branch is not a feature of GitHub, GitLab, etc. It's a >>> > feature >>> > > of git itself. On the 'bare' repository, issue this command: >>> > > >>> > > git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/*mybranch* >>> > > >>> > > Effectively, this is what GitHub is doing. It should be possible to do >>> > > with the Apache git host as well. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Dan Bress >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> Ah, I didn't realize that was a github only thing [1], I take-back my >>> > >> early comment and can now see how this is confusing. >>> > >> >>> > >> [1] >>> > >> >>> > >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201501.mbox/%3CCALhtWke141nTsCdA4tHnZXOJ1UGhtZurLwvDsjBxH_G=86n...@mail.gmail.com%3E >>> > >> >>> > >> Dan Bress >>> > >> Software Engineer >>> > >> ONYX Consulting Services >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> From: Joe Witt >>> > >> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:22 PM >>> > >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org >>> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' >>> distinction >>> > >> >>> > >> Nope. That is just what is shown in github as the default. >>> > >> On Aug 13, 2015 4:15 PM, "Dan Bress" wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> > +0. Our default branch is set to 'develop', so when you clone >>> > >> apache-nifi >>> > >> > from git, you are automatically looking at the 'develop' branch, >>> > right? >>> > >> To >>> > >> > me, this is a straight forward indicator of where I should be >>> working. >>> > >> > >>> > >> > I thought we set this up a little while ago to avoid the confusion? >>> > >> > >>> > >> > Dan Bress >>> > >> > Software Engineer >>> > >> > ONYX Consulting Services >>> > >> > >>> > >> > ________________________ >>> > >> > From: Ryan Blue >>> > >> > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:04 PM >>> > >> > To: dev@nifi.apache.org >>> > >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' >>> > distinction >>> > >> > >>> > >> > +1 to removing the distinction. Master is the default branch in a >>> lot >>> > of >>> > >> > projects and I would argue that is the common expectation. It sounds >>> > >> > like we can do gitflow without a separate develop branch (or at >>> least >>> > it >>> > >> > isn't too painful) so doing what new people tend to expect is a good >>> > >> thing. >>> > >> > >>> > >> > rb >>> > >> > >>> > >> > On 08/13/2015 12:55 PM, Mark Payne wrote: >>> > >> > > I think the issue here is less about gitflow bei
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
, this is an easy discussion if we can clearly articulate >> > value of the master/develop distinction. >> > >> > Thanks >> > Joe >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Adam Taft wrote: >> > > The default branch is not a feature of GitHub, GitLab, etc. It's a >> > feature >> > > of git itself. On the 'bare' repository, issue this command: >> > > >> > > git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/*mybranch* >> > > >> > > Effectively, this is what GitHub is doing. It should be possible to do >> > > with the Apache git host as well. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Dan Bress >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Ah, I didn't realize that was a github only thing [1], I take-back my >> > >> early comment and can now see how this is confusing. >> > >> >> > >> [1] >> > >> >> > >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201501.mbox/%3CCALhtWke141nTsCdA4tHnZXOJ1UGhtZurLwvDsjBxH_G=86n...@mail.gmail.com%3E >> > >> >> > >> Dan Bress >> > >> Software Engineer >> > >> ONYX Consulting Services >> > >> >> > >> ________________________ >> > >> From: Joe Witt >> > >> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:22 PM >> > >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org >> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' >> distinction >> > >> >> > >> Nope. That is just what is shown in github as the default. >> > >> On Aug 13, 2015 4:15 PM, "Dan Bress" wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > +0. Our default branch is set to 'develop', so when you clone >> > >> apache-nifi >> > >> > from git, you are automatically looking at the 'develop' branch, >> > right? >> > >> To >> > >> > me, this is a straight forward indicator of where I should be >> working. >> > >> > >> > >> > I thought we set this up a little while ago to avoid the confusion? >> > >> > >> > >> > Dan Bress >> > >> > Software Engineer >> > >> > ONYX Consulting Services >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > From: Ryan Blue >> > >> > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:04 PM >> > >> > To: dev@nifi.apache.org >> > >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' >> > distinction >> > >> > >> > >> > +1 to removing the distinction. Master is the default branch in a >> lot >> > of >> > >> > projects and I would argue that is the common expectation. It sounds >> > >> > like we can do gitflow without a separate develop branch (or at >> least >> > it >> > >> > isn't too painful) so doing what new people tend to expect is a good >> > >> thing. >> > >> > >> > >> > rb >> > >> > >> > >> > On 08/13/2015 12:55 PM, Mark Payne wrote: >> > >> > > I think the issue here is less about gitflow being "hard" and more >> > >> about >> > >> > it being confusing. >> > >> > > We have had numerous people write to the dev list about why the >> > thing >> > >> > that they checked out >> > >> > > doesn't have what they expect. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Even being very experience with NiFi, I've cloned the repo a >> couple >> > of >> > >> > times to new VM's >> > >> > > and forgotten to checkout develop before proceeding. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I think that gitflow has its merits, but like any other avenue we >> go >> > >> > down, it's important to weigh >> > >> > > pros against cons. Frankly, I think that anything that leads to >> > >> > confusion for newcomers (thereby >> > >> > > discouraging community growth) had better have some very strong >> > >> benefits. >> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
For downstream users of an apache project, "downloading source code" should be downloading a PMC sanctioned release off of the mirrors. I suspect that this obviates most of the value from making master something other than "where development lands." What's harder about creating hotfix releases by branching off of the previous release tag? That's what we do over in HBase, and I've never seen it add meaningful overhead. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Adam Taft wrote: > It's really a principle and style preference. Each of the git workflows > have pros/cons, but they are each viable. There's nothing that says that > gitflow is superior to other workflows. > > Gitflow has the unique advantage that, by default, master only has exactly > the finished product tags on it, and the latest release is always at the > master's head. If you clone and checkout master, you can safely assume > you're getting the most stable release, which is what most non-contributors > want when they download source code. > > If the community doesn't value this principle and master can just be a > free-for-all, that's OK too. It's going to be tougher to apply hotfixes to > existing stable releases, in my opinion, which might create more cries for > help when a bug is introduced during a release. There is a bit more "wild > west" and "forward only" approach when removing the gitflow methodology. > > Using good tooling, again like my reference to jgitflow, would make the RM > process much easier. If proper tooling exists, the RM process shouldn't be > an obstacle. If the right tooling does not exist, that's a different > story, of course. > > It might be good to have a survey of other Apache and open source project > development workflows. I was under the assumption that the "forking > workflow" is becoming the most common for open source contributions (with > Github's rise to dominance), and gitflow being a close second, but that's > just my guess, not research oriented. > > I personally have no vote or stake on this issue. I'm just chiming in some > thoughts. > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Joe Witt wrote: > > > So sounds like we can set the default to develop whenever it is > > cloned. That is a good start. We still have to articulate that we > > have 'master' and 'develop' and help folks understand why. > > > > So on that second part, let's help ourselves understand 'why' for our > > own community. For me that is what I'm pushing back on. Why is that > > helpful for *this* apache nifi community? Having done the release > > management gig a couple times now I am not seeing the value add for > > *this* project. There too we must be clear about how these models can > > be applied to generating value apache releases. > > > > I am open minded to this having value. That is why i was supportive > > of the idea back in Nov/Dec. But over the past 8 months or so I've > > only seen it as an 'extra step' for an already difficult RM task and > > as something that creates confusion. > > > > So for me, this is an easy discussion if we can clearly articulate > > value of the master/develop distinction. > > > > Thanks > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Adam Taft wrote: > > > The default branch is not a feature of GitHub, GitLab, etc. It's a > > feature > > > of git itself. On the 'bare' repository, issue this command: > > > > > > git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/*mybranch* > > > > > > Effectively, this is what GitHub is doing. It should be possible to do > > > with the Apache git host as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Dan Bress > > wrote: > > > > > >> Ah, I didn't realize that was a github only thing [1], I take-back my > > >> early comment and can now see how this is confusing. > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201501.mbox/%3CCALhtWke141nTsCdA4tHnZXOJ1UGhtZurLwvDsjBxH_G=86n...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > >> > > >> Dan Bress > > >> Software Engineer > > >> ONYX Consulting Services > > >> > > >> > > >> From: Joe Witt > > >> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:22 PM > > >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org > > >> Subject: Re: [DI
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
It's really a principle and style preference. Each of the git workflows have pros/cons, but they are each viable. There's nothing that says that gitflow is superior to other workflows. Gitflow has the unique advantage that, by default, master only has exactly the finished product tags on it, and the latest release is always at the master's head. If you clone and checkout master, you can safely assume you're getting the most stable release, which is what most non-contributors want when they download source code. If the community doesn't value this principle and master can just be a free-for-all, that's OK too. It's going to be tougher to apply hotfixes to existing stable releases, in my opinion, which might create more cries for help when a bug is introduced during a release. There is a bit more "wild west" and "forward only" approach when removing the gitflow methodology. Using good tooling, again like my reference to jgitflow, would make the RM process much easier. If proper tooling exists, the RM process shouldn't be an obstacle. If the right tooling does not exist, that's a different story, of course. It might be good to have a survey of other Apache and open source project development workflows. I was under the assumption that the "forking workflow" is becoming the most common for open source contributions (with Github's rise to dominance), and gitflow being a close second, but that's just my guess, not research oriented. I personally have no vote or stake on this issue. I'm just chiming in some thoughts. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Joe Witt wrote: > So sounds like we can set the default to develop whenever it is > cloned. That is a good start. We still have to articulate that we > have 'master' and 'develop' and help folks understand why. > > So on that second part, let's help ourselves understand 'why' for our > own community. For me that is what I'm pushing back on. Why is that > helpful for *this* apache nifi community? Having done the release > management gig a couple times now I am not seeing the value add for > *this* project. There too we must be clear about how these models can > be applied to generating value apache releases. > > I am open minded to this having value. That is why i was supportive > of the idea back in Nov/Dec. But over the past 8 months or so I've > only seen it as an 'extra step' for an already difficult RM task and > as something that creates confusion. > > So for me, this is an easy discussion if we can clearly articulate > value of the master/develop distinction. > > Thanks > Joe > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Adam Taft wrote: > > The default branch is not a feature of GitHub, GitLab, etc. It's a > feature > > of git itself. On the 'bare' repository, issue this command: > > > > git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/*mybranch* > > > > Effectively, this is what GitHub is doing. It should be possible to do > > with the Apache git host as well. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Dan Bress > wrote: > > > >> Ah, I didn't realize that was a github only thing [1], I take-back my > >> early comment and can now see how this is confusing. > >> > >> [1] > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201501.mbox/%3CCALhtWke141nTsCdA4tHnZXOJ1UGhtZurLwvDsjBxH_G=86n...@mail.gmail.com%3E > >> > >> Dan Bress > >> Software Engineer > >> ONYX Consulting Services > >> > >> > >> From: Joe Witt > >> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:22 PM > >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction > >> > >> Nope. That is just what is shown in github as the default. > >> On Aug 13, 2015 4:15 PM, "Dan Bress" wrote: > >> > >> > +0. Our default branch is set to 'develop', so when you clone > >> apache-nifi > >> > from git, you are automatically looking at the 'develop' branch, > right? > >> To > >> > me, this is a straight forward indicator of where I should be working. > >> > > >> > I thought we set this up a little while ago to avoid the confusion? > >> > > >> > Dan Bress > >> > Software Engineer > >> > ONYX Consulting Services > >> > > >> > > >> > From: Ryan Blue > >> > Sent: Thursday,
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
So sounds like we can set the default to develop whenever it is cloned. That is a good start. We still have to articulate that we have 'master' and 'develop' and help folks understand why. So on that second part, let's help ourselves understand 'why' for our own community. For me that is what I'm pushing back on. Why is that helpful for *this* apache nifi community? Having done the release management gig a couple times now I am not seeing the value add for *this* project. There too we must be clear about how these models can be applied to generating value apache releases. I am open minded to this having value. That is why i was supportive of the idea back in Nov/Dec. But over the past 8 months or so I've only seen it as an 'extra step' for an already difficult RM task and as something that creates confusion. So for me, this is an easy discussion if we can clearly articulate value of the master/develop distinction. Thanks Joe On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Adam Taft wrote: > The default branch is not a feature of GitHub, GitLab, etc. It's a feature > of git itself. On the 'bare' repository, issue this command: > > git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/*mybranch* > > Effectively, this is what GitHub is doing. It should be possible to do > with the Apache git host as well. > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Dan Bress wrote: > >> Ah, I didn't realize that was a github only thing [1], I take-back my >> early comment and can now see how this is confusing. >> >> [1] >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201501.mbox/%3CCALhtWke141nTsCdA4tHnZXOJ1UGhtZurLwvDsjBxH_G=86n...@mail.gmail.com%3E >> >> Dan Bress >> Software Engineer >> ONYX Consulting Services >> >> ________________ >> From: Joe Witt >> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:22 PM >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction >> >> Nope. That is just what is shown in github as the default. >> On Aug 13, 2015 4:15 PM, "Dan Bress" wrote: >> >> > +0. Our default branch is set to 'develop', so when you clone >> apache-nifi >> > from git, you are automatically looking at the 'develop' branch, right? >> To >> > me, this is a straight forward indicator of where I should be working. >> > >> > I thought we set this up a little while ago to avoid the confusion? >> > >> > Dan Bress >> > Software Engineer >> > ONYX Consulting Services >> > >> > >> > From: Ryan Blue >> > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:04 PM >> > To: dev@nifi.apache.org >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction >> > >> > +1 to removing the distinction. Master is the default branch in a lot of >> > projects and I would argue that is the common expectation. It sounds >> > like we can do gitflow without a separate develop branch (or at least it >> > isn't too painful) so doing what new people tend to expect is a good >> thing. >> > >> > rb >> > >> > On 08/13/2015 12:55 PM, Mark Payne wrote: >> > > I think the issue here is less about gitflow being "hard" and more >> about >> > it being confusing. >> > > We have had numerous people write to the dev list about why the thing >> > that they checked out >> > > doesn't have what they expect. >> > > >> > > Even being very experience with NiFi, I've cloned the repo a couple of >> > times to new VM's >> > > and forgotten to checkout develop before proceeding. >> > > >> > > I think that gitflow has its merits, but like any other avenue we go >> > down, it's important to weigh >> > > pros against cons. Frankly, I think that anything that leads to >> > confusion for newcomers (thereby >> > > discouraging community growth) had better have some very strong >> benefits. >> > > >> > > That being said, I don't personally see a lot of benefit in this >> > environment, so I would >> > > be a +1 to remove the distinction between the two branches. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:45:00 -0400 >> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
The default branch is not a feature of GitHub, GitLab, etc. It's a feature of git itself. On the 'bare' repository, issue this command: git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/*mybranch* Effectively, this is what GitHub is doing. It should be possible to do with the Apache git host as well. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Dan Bress wrote: > Ah, I didn't realize that was a github only thing [1], I take-back my > early comment and can now see how this is confusing. > > [1] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201501.mbox/%3CCALhtWke141nTsCdA4tHnZXOJ1UGhtZurLwvDsjBxH_G=86n...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > Dan Bress > Software Engineer > ONYX Consulting Services > > > From: Joe Witt > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:22 PM > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction > > Nope. That is just what is shown in github as the default. > On Aug 13, 2015 4:15 PM, "Dan Bress" wrote: > > > +0. Our default branch is set to 'develop', so when you clone > apache-nifi > > from git, you are automatically looking at the 'develop' branch, right? > To > > me, this is a straight forward indicator of where I should be working. > > > > I thought we set this up a little while ago to avoid the confusion? > > > > Dan Bress > > Software Engineer > > ONYX Consulting Services > > > > ____ > > From: Ryan Blue > > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:04 PM > > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction > > > > +1 to removing the distinction. Master is the default branch in a lot of > > projects and I would argue that is the common expectation. It sounds > > like we can do gitflow without a separate develop branch (or at least it > > isn't too painful) so doing what new people tend to expect is a good > thing. > > > > rb > > > > On 08/13/2015 12:55 PM, Mark Payne wrote: > > > I think the issue here is less about gitflow being "hard" and more > about > > it being confusing. > > > We have had numerous people write to the dev list about why the thing > > that they checked out > > > doesn't have what they expect. > > > > > > Even being very experience with NiFi, I've cloned the repo a couple of > > times to new VM's > > > and forgotten to checkout develop before proceeding. > > > > > > I think that gitflow has its merits, but like any other avenue we go > > down, it's important to weigh > > > pros against cons. Frankly, I think that anything that leads to > > confusion for newcomers (thereby > > > discouraging community growth) had better have some very strong > benefits. > > > > > > That being said, I don't personally see a lot of benefit in this > > environment, so I would > > > be a +1 to remove the distinction between the two branches. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:45:00 -0400 > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' > distinction > > >> From: a...@adamtaft.com > > >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org > > >> > > >> The difficulties of using the gitflow workflow and the release process > > can > > >> be significantly reduced with good tooling. I'm currently using the > > >> jgit-flow [1][2] maven plugin with very good success. It handles and > > >> manages feature, release, and hotfix branches seemlessly. And it > avoids > > >> common problems with the normal maven release plugin for gitflow. > > >> > > >> Before abandoning gitflow, the community should seriously consider > > tooling > > >> that makes it more usable. I'm not going to argue the merits of gitlab > > >> flow or any other workflows. But clearly, abandoning gitflow because > > it's > > >> "hard" is likely the wrong driver, if tooling exists to make it > better. > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > > > http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/maven-git-flow-plugin-for-better-releases/ > > >> > > >> [2] https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/jgit-flow/wiki/Home > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:5
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
I think you can change what branch is checked out by default by updating remote/HEAD? On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Joe Witt wrote: > Nope. That is just what is shown in github as the default. > On Aug 13, 2015 4:15 PM, "Dan Bress" wrote: > > > +0. Our default branch is set to 'develop', so when you clone > apache-nifi > > from git, you are automatically looking at the 'develop' branch, right? > To > > me, this is a straight forward indicator of where I should be working. > > > > I thought we set this up a little while ago to avoid the confusion? > > > > Dan Bress > > Software Engineer > > ONYX Consulting Services > > > > > > From: Ryan Blue > > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:04 PM > > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction > > > > +1 to removing the distinction. Master is the default branch in a lot of > > projects and I would argue that is the common expectation. It sounds > > like we can do gitflow without a separate develop branch (or at least it > > isn't too painful) so doing what new people tend to expect is a good > thing. > > > > rb > > > > On 08/13/2015 12:55 PM, Mark Payne wrote: > > > I think the issue here is less about gitflow being "hard" and more > about > > it being confusing. > > > We have had numerous people write to the dev list about why the thing > > that they checked out > > > doesn't have what they expect. > > > > > > Even being very experience with NiFi, I've cloned the repo a couple of > > times to new VM's > > > and forgotten to checkout develop before proceeding. > > > > > > I think that gitflow has its merits, but like any other avenue we go > > down, it's important to weigh > > > pros against cons. Frankly, I think that anything that leads to > > confusion for newcomers (thereby > > > discouraging community growth) had better have some very strong > benefits. > > > > > > That being said, I don't personally see a lot of benefit in this > > environment, so I would > > > be a +1 to remove the distinction between the two branches. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:45:00 -0400 > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' > distinction > > >> From: a...@adamtaft.com > > >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org > > >> > > >> The difficulties of using the gitflow workflow and the release process > > can > > >> be significantly reduced with good tooling. I'm currently using the > > >> jgit-flow [1][2] maven plugin with very good success. It handles and > > >> manages feature, release, and hotfix branches seemlessly. And it > avoids > > >> common problems with the normal maven release plugin for gitflow. > > >> > > >> Before abandoning gitflow, the community should seriously consider > > tooling > > >> that makes it more usable. I'm not going to argue the merits of gitlab > > >> flow or any other workflows. But clearly, abandoning gitflow because > > it's > > >> "hard" is likely the wrong driver, if tooling exists to make it > better. > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > > > http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/maven-git-flow-plugin-for-better-releases/ > > >> > > >> [2] https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/jgit-flow/wiki/Home > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Bryan Bende > wrote: > > >> > > >>> If we worked on master and had a prod branch that was the last > release, > > >>> then we have the same thing we do now, just with different names. > This > > >>> would be GitLab Flow as Brandon pointed out. > > >>> > > >>> That being said, I don't have experience with the release process, > and > > >>> maybe the prod branch does not provide any value for us. The prod > > branch > > >>> would normally be used to create quick fix branches based off > > production, > > >>> or when doing automated/continuous deployments to a production > system, > > but > > >>> if we aren't doing either of those things then ma
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
Ah, I didn't realize that was a github only thing [1], I take-back my early comment and can now see how this is confusing. [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201501.mbox/%3CCALhtWke141nTsCdA4tHnZXOJ1UGhtZurLwvDsjBxH_G=86n...@mail.gmail.com%3E Dan Bress Software Engineer ONYX Consulting Services From: Joe Witt Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:22 PM To: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction Nope. That is just what is shown in github as the default. On Aug 13, 2015 4:15 PM, "Dan Bress" wrote: > +0. Our default branch is set to 'develop', so when you clone apache-nifi > from git, you are automatically looking at the 'develop' branch, right? To > me, this is a straight forward indicator of where I should be working. > > I thought we set this up a little while ago to avoid the confusion? > > Dan Bress > Software Engineer > ONYX Consulting Services > > > From: Ryan Blue > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:04 PM > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction > > +1 to removing the distinction. Master is the default branch in a lot of > projects and I would argue that is the common expectation. It sounds > like we can do gitflow without a separate develop branch (or at least it > isn't too painful) so doing what new people tend to expect is a good thing. > > rb > > On 08/13/2015 12:55 PM, Mark Payne wrote: > > I think the issue here is less about gitflow being "hard" and more about > it being confusing. > > We have had numerous people write to the dev list about why the thing > that they checked out > > doesn't have what they expect. > > > > Even being very experience with NiFi, I've cloned the repo a couple of > times to new VM's > > and forgotten to checkout develop before proceeding. > > > > I think that gitflow has its merits, but like any other avenue we go > down, it's important to weigh > > pros against cons. Frankly, I think that anything that leads to > confusion for newcomers (thereby > > discouraging community growth) had better have some very strong benefits. > > > > That being said, I don't personally see a lot of benefit in this > environment, so I would > > be a +1 to remove the distinction between the two branches. > > > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:45:00 -0400 > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction > >> From: a...@adamtaft.com > >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org > >> > >> The difficulties of using the gitflow workflow and the release process > can > >> be significantly reduced with good tooling. I'm currently using the > >> jgit-flow [1][2] maven plugin with very good success. It handles and > >> manages feature, release, and hotfix branches seemlessly. And it avoids > >> common problems with the normal maven release plugin for gitflow. > >> > >> Before abandoning gitflow, the community should seriously consider > tooling > >> that makes it more usable. I'm not going to argue the merits of gitlab > >> flow or any other workflows. But clearly, abandoning gitflow because > it's > >> "hard" is likely the wrong driver, if tooling exists to make it better. > >> > >> [1] > >> > http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/maven-git-flow-plugin-for-better-releases/ > >> > >> [2] https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/jgit-flow/wiki/Home > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Bryan Bende wrote: > >> > >>> If we worked on master and had a prod branch that was the last release, > >>> then we have the same thing we do now, just with different names. This > >>> would be GitLab Flow as Brandon pointed out. > >>> > >>> That being said, I don't have experience with the release process, and > >>> maybe the prod branch does not provide any value for us. The prod > branch > >>> would normally be used to create quick fix branches based off > production, > >>> or when doing automated/continuous deployments to a production system, > but > >>> if we aren't doing either of those things then maybe it is not worth > it. > >>> > >>> -Bryan > >>> > >>> On Thu, Aug 13,
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
Nope. That is just what is shown in github as the default. On Aug 13, 2015 4:15 PM, "Dan Bress" wrote: > +0. Our default branch is set to 'develop', so when you clone apache-nifi > from git, you are automatically looking at the 'develop' branch, right? To > me, this is a straight forward indicator of where I should be working. > > I thought we set this up a little while ago to avoid the confusion? > > Dan Bress > Software Engineer > ONYX Consulting Services > > > From: Ryan Blue > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:04 PM > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction > > +1 to removing the distinction. Master is the default branch in a lot of > projects and I would argue that is the common expectation. It sounds > like we can do gitflow without a separate develop branch (or at least it > isn't too painful) so doing what new people tend to expect is a good thing. > > rb > > On 08/13/2015 12:55 PM, Mark Payne wrote: > > I think the issue here is less about gitflow being "hard" and more about > it being confusing. > > We have had numerous people write to the dev list about why the thing > that they checked out > > doesn't have what they expect. > > > > Even being very experience with NiFi, I've cloned the repo a couple of > times to new VM's > > and forgotten to checkout develop before proceeding. > > > > I think that gitflow has its merits, but like any other avenue we go > down, it's important to weigh > > pros against cons. Frankly, I think that anything that leads to > confusion for newcomers (thereby > > discouraging community growth) had better have some very strong benefits. > > > > That being said, I don't personally see a lot of benefit in this > environment, so I would > > be a +1 to remove the distinction between the two branches. > > > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:45:00 -0400 > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction > >> From: a...@adamtaft.com > >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org > >> > >> The difficulties of using the gitflow workflow and the release process > can > >> be significantly reduced with good tooling. I'm currently using the > >> jgit-flow [1][2] maven plugin with very good success. It handles and > >> manages feature, release, and hotfix branches seemlessly. And it avoids > >> common problems with the normal maven release plugin for gitflow. > >> > >> Before abandoning gitflow, the community should seriously consider > tooling > >> that makes it more usable. I'm not going to argue the merits of gitlab > >> flow or any other workflows. But clearly, abandoning gitflow because > it's > >> "hard" is likely the wrong driver, if tooling exists to make it better. > >> > >> [1] > >> > http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/maven-git-flow-plugin-for-better-releases/ > >> > >> [2] https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/jgit-flow/wiki/Home > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Bryan Bende wrote: > >> > >>> If we worked on master and had a prod branch that was the last release, > >>> then we have the same thing we do now, just with different names. This > >>> would be GitLab Flow as Brandon pointed out. > >>> > >>> That being said, I don't have experience with the release process, and > >>> maybe the prod branch does not provide any value for us. The prod > branch > >>> would normally be used to create quick fix branches based off > production, > >>> or when doing automated/continuous deployments to a production system, > but > >>> if we aren't doing either of those things then maybe it is not worth > it. > >>> > >>> -Bryan > >>> > >>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Brandon DeVries wrote: > >>> > >>>> Personally, I still think GitLab Flow[1] is all we need for us to be > >>> Really > >>>> Useful Engines. > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://about.gitlab.com/2014/09/29/gitlab-flow/ > >>>> > >>>> Brandon > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:15 PM Joe Witt wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Resending > >>>>&g
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
+0. Our default branch is set to 'develop', so when you clone apache-nifi from git, you are automatically looking at the 'develop' branch, right? To me, this is a straight forward indicator of where I should be working. I thought we set this up a little while ago to avoid the confusion? Dan Bress Software Engineer ONYX Consulting Services From: Ryan Blue Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:04 PM To: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction +1 to removing the distinction. Master is the default branch in a lot of projects and I would argue that is the common expectation. It sounds like we can do gitflow without a separate develop branch (or at least it isn't too painful) so doing what new people tend to expect is a good thing. rb On 08/13/2015 12:55 PM, Mark Payne wrote: > I think the issue here is less about gitflow being "hard" and more about it > being confusing. > We have had numerous people write to the dev list about why the thing that > they checked out > doesn't have what they expect. > > Even being very experience with NiFi, I've cloned the repo a couple of times > to new VM's > and forgotten to checkout develop before proceeding. > > I think that gitflow has its merits, but like any other avenue we go down, > it's important to weigh > pros against cons. Frankly, I think that anything that leads to confusion for > newcomers (thereby > discouraging community growth) had better have some very strong benefits. > > That being said, I don't personally see a lot of benefit in this environment, > so I would > be a +1 to remove the distinction between the two branches. > > > ---- >> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:45:00 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction >> From: a...@adamtaft.com >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org >> >> The difficulties of using the gitflow workflow and the release process can >> be significantly reduced with good tooling. I'm currently using the >> jgit-flow [1][2] maven plugin with very good success. It handles and >> manages feature, release, and hotfix branches seemlessly. And it avoids >> common problems with the normal maven release plugin for gitflow. >> >> Before abandoning gitflow, the community should seriously consider tooling >> that makes it more usable. I'm not going to argue the merits of gitlab >> flow or any other workflows. But clearly, abandoning gitflow because it's >> "hard" is likely the wrong driver, if tooling exists to make it better. >> >> [1] >> http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/maven-git-flow-plugin-for-better-releases/ >> >> [2] https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/jgit-flow/wiki/Home >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Bryan Bende wrote: >> >>> If we worked on master and had a prod branch that was the last release, >>> then we have the same thing we do now, just with different names. This >>> would be GitLab Flow as Brandon pointed out. >>> >>> That being said, I don't have experience with the release process, and >>> maybe the prod branch does not provide any value for us. The prod branch >>> would normally be used to create quick fix branches based off production, >>> or when doing automated/continuous deployments to a production system, but >>> if we aren't doing either of those things then maybe it is not worth it. >>> >>> -Bryan >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Brandon DeVries wrote: >>> >>>> Personally, I still think GitLab Flow[1] is all we need for us to be >>> Really >>>> Useful Engines. >>>> >>>> [1] https://about.gitlab.com/2014/09/29/gitlab-flow/ >>>> >>>> Brandon >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:15 PM Joe Witt wrote: >>>> >>>>> Resending >>>>> On Aug 13, 2015 12:22 PM, "Joe Witt" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Team, >>>>>> >>>>>> It was proposed by Ryan Blue on another thread that we consider >>>>>> dropping the master vs develop distinction. In the interest of his, >>>>>> in my view, very good point I didn't want it to get buried in that >>>>>> thread. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] is the thread when we last discussed gitflow/develop/master on >>>>>> entry to the inc
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
+1 to removing the distinction. Master is the default branch in a lot of projects and I would argue that is the common expectation. It sounds like we can do gitflow without a separate develop branch (or at least it isn't too painful) so doing what new people tend to expect is a good thing. rb On 08/13/2015 12:55 PM, Mark Payne wrote: I think the issue here is less about gitflow being "hard" and more about it being confusing. We have had numerous people write to the dev list about why the thing that they checked out doesn't have what they expect. Even being very experience with NiFi, I've cloned the repo a couple of times to new VM's and forgotten to checkout develop before proceeding. I think that gitflow has its merits, but like any other avenue we go down, it's important to weigh pros against cons. Frankly, I think that anything that leads to confusion for newcomers (thereby discouraging community growth) had better have some very strong benefits. That being said, I don't personally see a lot of benefit in this environment, so I would be a +1 to remove the distinction between the two branches. Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:45:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction From: a...@adamtaft.com To: dev@nifi.apache.org The difficulties of using the gitflow workflow and the release process can be significantly reduced with good tooling. I'm currently using the jgit-flow [1][2] maven plugin with very good success. It handles and manages feature, release, and hotfix branches seemlessly. And it avoids common problems with the normal maven release plugin for gitflow. Before abandoning gitflow, the community should seriously consider tooling that makes it more usable. I'm not going to argue the merits of gitlab flow or any other workflows. But clearly, abandoning gitflow because it's "hard" is likely the wrong driver, if tooling exists to make it better. [1] http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/maven-git-flow-plugin-for-better-releases/ [2] https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/jgit-flow/wiki/Home On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Bryan Bende wrote: If we worked on master and had a prod branch that was the last release, then we have the same thing we do now, just with different names. This would be GitLab Flow as Brandon pointed out. That being said, I don't have experience with the release process, and maybe the prod branch does not provide any value for us. The prod branch would normally be used to create quick fix branches based off production, or when doing automated/continuous deployments to a production system, but if we aren't doing either of those things then maybe it is not worth it. -Bryan On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Brandon DeVries wrote: Personally, I still think GitLab Flow[1] is all we need for us to be Really Useful Engines. [1] https://about.gitlab.com/2014/09/29/gitlab-flow/ Brandon On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:15 PM Joe Witt wrote: Resending On Aug 13, 2015 12:22 PM, "Joe Witt" wrote: Team, It was proposed by Ryan Blue on another thread that we consider dropping the master vs develop distinction. In the interest of his, in my view, very good point I didn't want it to get buried in that thread. [1] is the thread when we last discussed gitflow/develop/master on entry to the incubator. And from that thread here is the part I wish I had better understood when the wise Mr Benson said it: "Another issue with gitflow is the master branch. The master branch is supposed to get merged to for releases. The maven-release-plugin won't do that, and the jgitflow plugin is unsafe. So one option is to 'use gitflow' but not bother with the master versus develop distinction, the other is to do manual merges to master at release points." I think we should follow this guidance: "'use gitflow' but not bother with the master versus develop distinction". I say this from having done the release management job now a couple of times including having done a 'hotfix'. My comments here are not a rejection of that master/develop concept in general. It is simply pointing out that for the Apache NiFi community it is not adding value but is creating confusion and delay [2]. Thanks Joe [1] http://s.apache.org/GIW [2] Sir Topham Hatt - Thomas and Friends (tm) -- Ryan Blue Software Engineer Cloudera, Inc.
RE: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
I think the issue here is less about gitflow being "hard" and more about it being confusing. We have had numerous people write to the dev list about why the thing that they checked out doesn't have what they expect. Even being very experience with NiFi, I've cloned the repo a couple of times to new VM's and forgotten to checkout develop before proceeding. I think that gitflow has its merits, but like any other avenue we go down, it's important to weigh pros against cons. Frankly, I think that anything that leads to confusion for newcomers (thereby discouraging community growth) had better have some very strong benefits. That being said, I don't personally see a lot of benefit in this environment, so I would be a +1 to remove the distinction between the two branches. > Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:45:00 -0400 > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction > From: a...@adamtaft.com > To: dev@nifi.apache.org > > The difficulties of using the gitflow workflow and the release process can > be significantly reduced with good tooling. I'm currently using the > jgit-flow [1][2] maven plugin with very good success. It handles and > manages feature, release, and hotfix branches seemlessly. And it avoids > common problems with the normal maven release plugin for gitflow. > > Before abandoning gitflow, the community should seriously consider tooling > that makes it more usable. I'm not going to argue the merits of gitlab > flow or any other workflows. But clearly, abandoning gitflow because it's > "hard" is likely the wrong driver, if tooling exists to make it better. > > [1] > http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/maven-git-flow-plugin-for-better-releases/ > > [2] https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/jgit-flow/wiki/Home > > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Bryan Bende wrote: > >> If we worked on master and had a prod branch that was the last release, >> then we have the same thing we do now, just with different names. This >> would be GitLab Flow as Brandon pointed out. >> >> That being said, I don't have experience with the release process, and >> maybe the prod branch does not provide any value for us. The prod branch >> would normally be used to create quick fix branches based off production, >> or when doing automated/continuous deployments to a production system, but >> if we aren't doing either of those things then maybe it is not worth it. >> >> -Bryan >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Brandon DeVries wrote: >> >>> Personally, I still think GitLab Flow[1] is all we need for us to be >> Really >>> Useful Engines. >>> >>> [1] https://about.gitlab.com/2014/09/29/gitlab-flow/ >>> >>> Brandon >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:15 PM Joe Witt wrote: >>> >>>> Resending >>>> On Aug 13, 2015 12:22 PM, "Joe Witt" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Team, >>>>> >>>>> It was proposed by Ryan Blue on another thread that we consider >>>>> dropping the master vs develop distinction. In the interest of his, >>>>> in my view, very good point I didn't want it to get buried in that >>>>> thread. >>>>> >>>>> [1] is the thread when we last discussed gitflow/develop/master on >>>>> entry to the incubator. >>>>> >>>>> And from that thread here is the part I wish I had better understood >>>>> when the wise Mr Benson said it: >>>>> >>>>> "Another issue with gitflow is the master branch. The master branch >> is >>>>> supposed to get merged to for releases. The maven-release-plugin >> won't >>>>> do that, and the jgitflow plugin is unsafe. So one option is to 'use >>>>> gitflow' but not bother with the master versus develop distinction, >>>>> the other is to do manual merges to master at release points." >>>>> >>>>> I think we should follow this guidance: "'use gitflow' but not bother >>>>> with the master versus develop distinction". I say this from having >>>>> done the release management job now a couple of times including >> having >>>>> done a 'hotfix'. >>>>> >>>>> My comments here are not a rejection of that master/develop concept >> in >>>>> general. It is simply pointing out that for the Apache NiFi >> community >>>>> it is not adding value but is creating confusion and delay [2]. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/GIW >>>>> [2] Sir Topham Hatt - Thomas and Friends (tm) >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
The difficulties of using the gitflow workflow and the release process can be significantly reduced with good tooling. I'm currently using the jgit-flow [1][2] maven plugin with very good success. It handles and manages feature, release, and hotfix branches seemlessly. And it avoids common problems with the normal maven release plugin for gitflow. Before abandoning gitflow, the community should seriously consider tooling that makes it more usable. I'm not going to argue the merits of gitlab flow or any other workflows. But clearly, abandoning gitflow because it's "hard" is likely the wrong driver, if tooling exists to make it better. [1] http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/maven-git-flow-plugin-for-better-releases/ [2] https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/jgit-flow/wiki/Home On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Bryan Bende wrote: > If we worked on master and had a prod branch that was the last release, > then we have the same thing we do now, just with different names. This > would be GitLab Flow as Brandon pointed out. > > That being said, I don't have experience with the release process, and > maybe the prod branch does not provide any value for us. The prod branch > would normally be used to create quick fix branches based off production, > or when doing automated/continuous deployments to a production system, but > if we aren't doing either of those things then maybe it is not worth it. > > -Bryan > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Brandon DeVries wrote: > > > Personally, I still think GitLab Flow[1] is all we need for us to be > Really > > Useful Engines. > > > > [1] https://about.gitlab.com/2014/09/29/gitlab-flow/ > > > > Brandon > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:15 PM Joe Witt wrote: > > > > > Resending > > > On Aug 13, 2015 12:22 PM, "Joe Witt" wrote: > > > > > > > Team, > > > > > > > > It was proposed by Ryan Blue on another thread that we consider > > > > dropping the master vs develop distinction. In the interest of his, > > > > in my view, very good point I didn't want it to get buried in that > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > [1] is the thread when we last discussed gitflow/develop/master on > > > > entry to the incubator. > > > > > > > > And from that thread here is the part I wish I had better understood > > > > when the wise Mr Benson said it: > > > > > > > > "Another issue with gitflow is the master branch. The master branch > is > > > > supposed to get merged to for releases. The maven-release-plugin > won't > > > > do that, and the jgitflow plugin is unsafe. So one option is to 'use > > > > gitflow' but not bother with the master versus develop distinction, > > > > the other is to do manual merges to master at release points." > > > > > > > > I think we should follow this guidance: "'use gitflow' but not bother > > > > with the master versus develop distinction". I say this from having > > > > done the release management job now a couple of times including > having > > > > done a 'hotfix'. > > > > > > > > My comments here are not a rejection of that master/develop concept > in > > > > general. It is simply pointing out that for the Apache NiFi > community > > > > it is not adding value but is creating confusion and delay [2]. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > [1] http://s.apache.org/GIW > > > > [2] Sir Topham Hatt - Thomas and Friends (tm) > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
If we worked on master and had a prod branch that was the last release, then we have the same thing we do now, just with different names. This would be GitLab Flow as Brandon pointed out. That being said, I don't have experience with the release process, and maybe the prod branch does not provide any value for us. The prod branch would normally be used to create quick fix branches based off production, or when doing automated/continuous deployments to a production system, but if we aren't doing either of those things then maybe it is not worth it. -Bryan On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Brandon DeVries wrote: > Personally, I still think GitLab Flow[1] is all we need for us to be Really > Useful Engines. > > [1] https://about.gitlab.com/2014/09/29/gitlab-flow/ > > Brandon > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:15 PM Joe Witt wrote: > > > Resending > > On Aug 13, 2015 12:22 PM, "Joe Witt" wrote: > > > > > Team, > > > > > > It was proposed by Ryan Blue on another thread that we consider > > > dropping the master vs develop distinction. In the interest of his, > > > in my view, very good point I didn't want it to get buried in that > > > thread. > > > > > > [1] is the thread when we last discussed gitflow/develop/master on > > > entry to the incubator. > > > > > > And from that thread here is the part I wish I had better understood > > > when the wise Mr Benson said it: > > > > > > "Another issue with gitflow is the master branch. The master branch is > > > supposed to get merged to for releases. The maven-release-plugin won't > > > do that, and the jgitflow plugin is unsafe. So one option is to 'use > > > gitflow' but not bother with the master versus develop distinction, > > > the other is to do manual merges to master at release points." > > > > > > I think we should follow this guidance: "'use gitflow' but not bother > > > with the master versus develop distinction". I say this from having > > > done the release management job now a couple of times including having > > > done a 'hotfix'. > > > > > > My comments here are not a rejection of that master/develop concept in > > > general. It is simply pointing out that for the Apache NiFi community > > > it is not adding value but is creating confusion and delay [2]. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Joe > > > > > > [1] http://s.apache.org/GIW > > > [2] Sir Topham Hatt - Thomas and Friends (tm) > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
Personally, I still think GitLab Flow[1] is all we need for us to be Really Useful Engines. [1] https://about.gitlab.com/2014/09/29/gitlab-flow/ Brandon On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:15 PM Joe Witt wrote: > Resending > On Aug 13, 2015 12:22 PM, "Joe Witt" wrote: > > > Team, > > > > It was proposed by Ryan Blue on another thread that we consider > > dropping the master vs develop distinction. In the interest of his, > > in my view, very good point I didn't want it to get buried in that > > thread. > > > > [1] is the thread when we last discussed gitflow/develop/master on > > entry to the incubator. > > > > And from that thread here is the part I wish I had better understood > > when the wise Mr Benson said it: > > > > "Another issue with gitflow is the master branch. The master branch is > > supposed to get merged to for releases. The maven-release-plugin won't > > do that, and the jgitflow plugin is unsafe. So one option is to 'use > > gitflow' but not bother with the master versus develop distinction, > > the other is to do manual merges to master at release points." > > > > I think we should follow this guidance: "'use gitflow' but not bother > > with the master versus develop distinction". I say this from having > > done the release management job now a couple of times including having > > done a 'hotfix'. > > > > My comments here are not a rejection of that master/develop concept in > > general. It is simply pointing out that for the Apache NiFi community > > it is not adding value but is creating confusion and delay [2]. > > > > Thanks > > Joe > > > > [1] http://s.apache.org/GIW > > [2] Sir Topham Hatt - Thomas and Friends (tm) > > >
[DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
Team, It was proposed by Ryan Blue on another thread that we consider dropping the master vs develop distinction. In the interest of his, in my view, very good point I didn't want it to get buried in that thread. [1] is the thread when we last discussed gitflow/develop/master on entry to the incubator. And from that thread here is the part I wish I had better understood when the wise Mr Benson said it: "Another issue with gitflow is the master branch. The master branch is supposed to get merged to for releases. The maven-release-plugin won't do that, and the jgitflow plugin is unsafe. So one option is to 'use gitflow' but not bother with the master versus develop distinction, the other is to do manual merges to master at release points." I think we should follow this guidance: "'use gitflow' but not bother with the master versus develop distinction". I say this from having done the release management job now a couple of times including having done a 'hotfix'. My comments here are not a rejection of that master/develop concept in general. It is simply pointing out that for the Apache NiFi community it is not adding value but is creating confusion and delay [2]. Thanks Joe [1] http://s.apache.org/GIW [2] Sir Topham Hatt - Thomas and Friends (tm)
Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of the 'master' vs 'develop' distinction
Resending On Aug 13, 2015 12:22 PM, "Joe Witt" wrote: > Team, > > It was proposed by Ryan Blue on another thread that we consider > dropping the master vs develop distinction. In the interest of his, > in my view, very good point I didn't want it to get buried in that > thread. > > [1] is the thread when we last discussed gitflow/develop/master on > entry to the incubator. > > And from that thread here is the part I wish I had better understood > when the wise Mr Benson said it: > > "Another issue with gitflow is the master branch. The master branch is > supposed to get merged to for releases. The maven-release-plugin won't > do that, and the jgitflow plugin is unsafe. So one option is to 'use > gitflow' but not bother with the master versus develop distinction, > the other is to do manual merges to master at release points." > > I think we should follow this guidance: "'use gitflow' but not bother > with the master versus develop distinction". I say this from having > done the release management job now a couple of times including having > done a 'hotfix'. > > My comments here are not a rejection of that master/develop concept in > general. It is simply pointing out that for the Apache NiFi community > it is not adding value but is creating confusion and delay [2]. > > Thanks > Joe > > [1] http://s.apache.org/GIW > [2] Sir Topham Hatt - Thomas and Friends (tm) >
