Re: Fate of master branch
We are presumably following the `git-flow` release process, of loosely. That process specifies that there is a branch which is the latest main (not supporting) release. If you want to call is `release` then fine. A rose by any other name, and all that. But having that reference is useful for the working model that we purport to follow. From: Owen Nichols Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 1:45 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Fate of master branch @Robert, would you care to elaborate on the case for keeping a branch (by any name) that this discussion thread overwhelmingly felt: * "isn’t really in use for anything vital" * "always a source of confusion" * "don't see the need for it" * "no good reason to keep it" * "always a little unclear...what master was doing" And if there is value in keeping it, why not pick a meaningful name like "latest_release" or "stable"? If the goal is just to be a "symlink" to latest release tag, why not just explain in the README how to check out the tag for the release you want (which might not always be the latest release). On 7/23/20, 7:53 PM, "Robert Houghton" wrote: I would not delete the branch without a new branch 'main' in its place On Jul 23, 2020 17:50, Owen Nichols wrote: Now that geode-examples' default branch has been changed to develop, and nothing further has been added to this discussion in a while, would anyone like to call for a vote to eliminate master branch from all geode projects? I would suggest holding this vote under 'code modification' rules[1] since we would be deleting code. Even though master should be substantially equivalent to latest release tag (currently rel/v1.12.0), git diff shows a few small differences. [1] a timeframe of at least 72 hours and a single -1 can veto, see https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apache.org%2Ffoundation%2Fvoting.htmldata=02%7C01%7Crhoughton%40vmware.com%7C777db553b8ab4b233dcc08d82fadee8a%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637311771371808600sdata=c60eG80iwUxt1YMX6mQIxu%2BsNaOz4oLCexOLFERQ8IQ%3Dreserved=0 On 7/7/20, 6:33 PM, "Owen Nichols" wrote: Since the branch proposed for deletion is the default branch in geode-examples, you will need to file an ASF INFRA ticket to change that default. This is a great discussion thread, but ASF will require a [VOTE] thread to be cited. I am concerned about keeping it easy for someone who has just cloned geode to identify the most stable branch for their purpose. Before, they could always be assured `git checkout master` would give the flagship release. Now, new users will be immediately forced into some daunting detective work to sift through hundreds of haphazard tags and branches (a task even veteran committers frequently fail). I would strongly encourage an aggressive cleanup of unhelpful branches and tags, as Jacob proposed last month, before getting rid of the latest_release concept. On 7/7/20, 8:24 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote: Just to follow up on this: I've filed GEODE-8335 (https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FGEODE-8335data=02%7C01%7Crhoughton%40vmware.com%7C777db553b8ab4b233dcc08d82fadee8a%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637311771371818600sdata=lggG4kZu37SgNdlWaMKOTB4ulTtpbaDqrueUItiHK1E%3Dreserved=0) to track, respectfully (cowardly __ ) deferring to individuals who regularly contribute to the various Geode repos to handle it as they see fit. I'll take care of the several Geode Native associated repos. Thanks, Blake On 6/26/20, 12:21 PM, "Dave Barnes" wrote: +1 if we can override git’s ‘master’ default and establish ‘develop’ in its place. Otherwise renaming to ‘main’ would solve the problem with the negative connotations. NB: Mark, I think the 3-vote convention is just for back-ports to the release-branch. I don’t think of it as applying to a general discussion like this one. > On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:42 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > By just do it, I assume you mean: > > - Contact delete master where not needed > - Rename master to main when needed > - Contact INFRA to change the default branch > - Update README and CI jobs as needed > > Across *all* geode repos. > > > Anthony > > >> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:38 AM, Mark Hanson wrote: >> >&
Re: Fate of master branch
her.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for deleting master branch. An also for updating the
wiki page about
>>>> branching that Alberto pointed out.
>>>>
>>>> De: Bruce Schuchardt
>>>> Enviado: viernes, 26 de junio de 2020 17:37
>>>> Para: dev@geode.apache.org
>>>> Asunto: Re: Fate of master branch
>>>>
>>>> Let's just delete it. I need to do that in my own repos
as well.
>>>>
>>>> On 6/26/20, 8:05 AM, "Blake Bender"
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed
it. In
>>>> keeping with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we
did something about
>>>> removing the insensitive term master from Geode
repositories.
>>>>
>>>> One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a
simple
>>>> rename from master • main. In our own case, however,
master isn’t really
>>>> in use for anything vital. We track releases with a tag
and a branch to
>>>> backport fixes to, and the develop branch is the “source
of truth”
>>>> latest-and-greatest version of the code. We could thus
simply delete
>>>> master with no loss I’m aware of. Any opinions?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Blake
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: Fate of master branch
I would not delete the branch without a new branch 'main' in its place
On Jul 23, 2020 17:50, Owen Nichols wrote:
Now that geode-examples' default branch has been changed to develop, and
nothing further has been added to this discussion in a while, would anyone like
to call for a vote to eliminate master branch from all geode projects?
I would suggest holding this vote under 'code modification' rules[1] since we
would be deleting code. Even though master should be substantially equivalent
to latest release tag (currently rel/v1.12.0), git diff shows a few small
differences.
[1] a timeframe of at least 72 hours and a single -1 can veto, see
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
On 7/7/20, 6:33 PM, "Owen Nichols" wrote:
Since the branch proposed for deletion is the default branch in
geode-examples, you will need to file an ASF INFRA ticket to change that
default. This is a great discussion thread, but ASF will require a [VOTE]
thread to be cited.
I am concerned about keeping it easy for someone who has just cloned geode
to identify the most stable branch for their purpose. Before, they could
always be assured `git checkout master` would give the flagship release. Now,
new users will be immediately forced into some daunting detective work to sift
through hundreds of haphazard tags and branches (a task even veteran committers
frequently fail). I would strongly encourage an aggressive cleanup of
unhelpful branches and tags, as Jacob proposed last month, before getting rid
of the latest_release concept.
On 7/7/20, 8:24 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote:
Just to follow up on this: I've filed GEODE-8335
(https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FGEODE-8335data=02%7C01%7Crhoughton%40vmware.com%7Ce8af678cedaa48c3f19408d82f6b846d%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637311486111409381sdata=K%2Fs68rCpCgsc6Duzey9Iodf9gdUyE0AMAfGFzr2y4VA%3Dreserved=0)
to track, respectfully (cowardly __ ) deferring to individuals who regularly
contribute to the various Geode repos to handle it as they see fit. I'll take
care of the several Geode Native associated repos.
Thanks,
Blake
On 6/26/20, 12:21 PM, "Dave Barnes" wrote:
+1 if we can override git’s ‘master’ default and establish
‘develop’ in its place. Otherwise renaming to ‘main’ would solve the problem
with the negative connotations.
NB: Mark, I think the 3-vote convention is just for back-ports to
the release-branch. I don’t think of it as applying to a general discussion
like this one.
> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:42 AM, Anthony Baker
wrote:
>
> By just do it, I assume you mean:
>
> - Contact delete master where not needed
> - Rename master to main when needed
> - Contact INFRA to change the default branch
> - Update README and CI jobs as needed
>
> Across *all* geode repos.
>
>
> Anthony
>
>
>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:38 AM, Mark Hanson
wrote:
>>
>> +1 to delete. No good reason to keep it that I know of. I think
I am the third +1 with no -1s so just do it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:13 AM, Alexander Murmann
wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 to deleting. Given we tag everything properly on the other
branches, I
>>> don't see the need for it either.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for deleting master branch. An also for updating the wiki
page about
>>>> branching that Alberto pointed out.
>>>> ____
>>>> De: Bruce Schuchardt
>>>> Enviado: viernes, 26 de junio de 2020 17:37
>>>> Para: dev@geode.apache.org
>>>> Asunto: Re: Fate of master branch
>>>>
>>>> Let's just delete it. I need to do that in my own repos as
well.
>>>>
>>>> On 6/26/20, 8:05 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it.
In
>>>> keeping with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did
something about
>>>> removing the insensitive term master from Geode re
Re: Fate of master branch
Now that geode-examples' default branch has been changed to develop, and
nothing further has been added to this discussion in a while, would anyone like
to call for a vote to eliminate master branch from all geode projects?
I would suggest holding this vote under 'code modification' rules[1] since we
would be deleting code. Even though master should be substantially equivalent
to latest release tag (currently rel/v1.12.0), git diff shows a few small
differences.
[1] a timeframe of at least 72 hours and a single -1 can veto, see
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
On 7/7/20, 6:33 PM, "Owen Nichols" wrote:
Since the branch proposed for deletion is the default branch in
geode-examples, you will need to file an ASF INFRA ticket to change that
default. This is a great discussion thread, but ASF will require a [VOTE]
thread to be cited.
I am concerned about keeping it easy for someone who has just cloned geode
to identify the most stable branch for their purpose. Before, they could
always be assured `git checkout master` would give the flagship release. Now,
new users will be immediately forced into some daunting detective work to sift
through hundreds of haphazard tags and branches (a task even veteran committers
frequently fail). I would strongly encourage an aggressive cleanup of
unhelpful branches and tags, as Jacob proposed last month, before getting rid
of the latest_release concept.
On 7/7/20, 8:24 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote:
Just to follow up on this: I've filed GEODE-8335
(https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FGEODE-8335data=02%7C01%7Conichols%40vmware.com%7Cff4858c7e66c4a5dd66d08d822dedc70%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637297687860702537sdata=r07swTcgtBGXkdbGaZEVDwMSQrPL4RGqlG3Jc7wnQcE%3Dreserved=0)
to track, respectfully (cowardly __ ) deferring to individuals who regularly
contribute to the various Geode repos to handle it as they see fit. I'll take
care of the several Geode Native associated repos.
Thanks,
Blake
On 6/26/20, 12:21 PM, "Dave Barnes" wrote:
+1 if we can override git’s ‘master’ default and establish
‘develop’ in its place. Otherwise renaming to ‘main’ would solve the problem
with the negative connotations.
NB: Mark, I think the 3-vote convention is just for back-ports to
the release-branch. I don’t think of it as applying to a general discussion
like this one.
> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:42 AM, Anthony Baker
wrote:
>
> By just do it, I assume you mean:
>
> - Contact delete master where not needed
> - Rename master to main when needed
> - Contact INFRA to change the default branch
> - Update README and CI jobs as needed
>
> Across *all* geode repos.
>
>
> Anthony
>
>
>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:38 AM, Mark Hanson
wrote:
>>
>> +1 to delete. No good reason to keep it that I know of. I think
I am the third +1 with no -1s so just do it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:13 AM, Alexander Murmann
wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 to deleting. Given we tag everything properly on the other
branches, I
>>> don't see the need for it either.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for deleting master branch. An also for updating the wiki
page about
>>>> branching that Alberto pointed out.
>>>> ____
>>>> De: Bruce Schuchardt
>>>> Enviado: viernes, 26 de junio de 2020 17:37
>>>> Para: dev@geode.apache.org
>>>> Asunto: Re: Fate of master branch
>>>>
>>>> Let's just delete it. I need to do that in my own repos as
well.
>>>>
>>>> On 6/26/20, 8:05 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it.
In
>>>> keeping with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did
something about
>>>> removing the insensitive term master from Geode repositories.
>>>>
>>>> One choice a lot of projects appear to be
Re: Fate of master branch
Since the branch proposed for deletion is the default branch in geode-examples,
you will need to file an ASF INFRA ticket to change that default. This is a
great discussion thread, but ASF will require a [VOTE] thread to be cited.
I am concerned about keeping it easy for someone who has just cloned geode to
identify the most stable branch for their purpose. Before, they could always
be assured `git checkout master` would give the flagship release. Now, new
users will be immediately forced into some daunting detective work to sift
through hundreds of haphazard tags and branches (a task even veteran committers
frequently fail). I would strongly encourage an aggressive cleanup of
unhelpful branches and tags, as Jacob proposed last month, before getting rid
of the latest_release concept.
On 7/7/20, 8:24 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote:
Just to follow up on this: I've filed GEODE-8335
(https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FGEODE-8335data=02%7C01%7Conichols%40vmware.com%7Cb3a06863e89e4b9f06bb08d82289cebe%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637297322561614965sdata=bXkoPZBLk3CR29lfV6AP5OcnjPWUvjuhSk3AZAXC7Do%3Dreserved=0)
to track, respectfully (cowardly __ ) deferring to individuals who regularly
contribute to the various Geode repos to handle it as they see fit. I'll take
care of the several Geode Native associated repos.
Thanks,
Blake
On 6/26/20, 12:21 PM, "Dave Barnes" wrote:
+1 if we can override git’s ‘master’ default and establish ‘develop’ in
its place. Otherwise renaming to ‘main’ would solve the problem with the
negative connotations.
NB: Mark, I think the 3-vote convention is just for back-ports to the
release-branch. I don’t think of it as applying to a general discussion like
this one.
> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:42 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
>
> By just do it, I assume you mean:
>
> - Contact delete master where not needed
> - Rename master to main when needed
> - Contact INFRA to change the default branch
> - Update README and CI jobs as needed
>
> Across *all* geode repos.
>
>
> Anthony
>
>
>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:38 AM, Mark Hanson wrote:
>>
>> +1 to delete. No good reason to keep it that I know of. I think I am
the third +1 with no -1s so just do it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:13 AM, Alexander Murmann
wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 to deleting. Given we tag everything properly on the other
branches, I
>>> don't see the need for it either.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for deleting master branch. An also for updating the wiki page
about
>>>> branching that Alberto pointed out.
>>>>
>>>> De: Bruce Schuchardt
>>>> Enviado: viernes, 26 de junio de 2020 17:37
>>>> Para: dev@geode.apache.org
>>>> Asunto: Re: Fate of master branch
>>>>
>>>> Let's just delete it. I need to do that in my own repos as well.
>>>>
>>>> On 6/26/20, 8:05 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it. In
>>>> keeping with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did
something about
>>>> removing the insensitive term master from Geode repositories.
>>>>
>>>> One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a simple
>>>> rename from master • main. In our own case, however, master isn’t
really
>>>> in use for anything vital. We track releases with a tag and a
branch to
>>>> backport fixes to, and the develop branch is the “source of truth”
>>>> latest-and-greatest version of the code. We could thus simply
delete
>>>> master with no loss I’m aware of. Any opinions?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Blake
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: Fate of master branch
Just to follow up on this: I've filed GEODE-8335 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8335) to track, respectfully (cowardly __ ) deferring to individuals who regularly contribute to the various Geode repos to handle it as they see fit. I'll take care of the several Geode Native associated repos. Thanks, Blake On 6/26/20, 12:21 PM, "Dave Barnes" wrote: +1 if we can override git’s ‘master’ default and establish ‘develop’ in its place. Otherwise renaming to ‘main’ would solve the problem with the negative connotations. NB: Mark, I think the 3-vote convention is just for back-ports to the release-branch. I don’t think of it as applying to a general discussion like this one. > On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:42 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > By just do it, I assume you mean: > > - Contact delete master where not needed > - Rename master to main when needed > - Contact INFRA to change the default branch > - Update README and CI jobs as needed > > Across *all* geode repos. > > > Anthony > > >> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:38 AM, Mark Hanson wrote: >> >> +1 to delete. No good reason to keep it that I know of. I think I am the third +1 with no -1s so just do it. >> >> Thanks, >> Mark >> >>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:13 AM, Alexander Murmann wrote: >>> >>> +1 to deleting. Given we tag everything properly on the other branches, I >>> don't see the need for it either. >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for deleting master branch. An also for updating the wiki page about >>>> branching that Alberto pointed out. >>>> >>>> De: Bruce Schuchardt >>>> Enviado: viernes, 26 de junio de 2020 17:37 >>>> Para: dev@geode.apache.org >>>> Asunto: Re: Fate of master branch >>>> >>>> Let's just delete it. I need to do that in my own repos as well. >>>> >>>> On 6/26/20, 8:05 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote: >>>> >>>> Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it. In >>>> keeping with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did something about >>>> removing the insensitive term master from Geode repositories. >>>> >>>> One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a simple >>>> rename from master • main. In our own case, however, master isn’t really >>>> in use for anything vital. We track releases with a tag and a branch to >>>> backport fixes to, and the develop branch is the “source of truth” >>>> latest-and-greatest version of the code. We could thus simply delete >>>> master with no loss I’m aware of. Any opinions? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Blake >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >
Re: Fate of master branch
+1 if we can override git’s ‘master’ default and establish ‘develop’ in its place. Otherwise renaming to ‘main’ would solve the problem with the negative connotations. NB: Mark, I think the 3-vote convention is just for back-ports to the release-branch. I don’t think of it as applying to a general discussion like this one. > On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:42 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > By just do it, I assume you mean: > > - Contact delete master where not needed > - Rename master to main when needed > - Contact INFRA to change the default branch > - Update README and CI jobs as needed > > Across *all* geode repos. > > > Anthony > > >> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:38 AM, Mark Hanson wrote: >> >> +1 to delete. No good reason to keep it that I know of. I think I am the >> third +1 with no -1s so just do it. >> >> Thanks, >> Mark >> >>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:13 AM, Alexander Murmann wrote: >>> >>> +1 to deleting. Given we tag everything properly on the other branches, I >>> don't see the need for it either. >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 for deleting master branch. An also for updating the wiki page about >>>> branching that Alberto pointed out. >>>> >>>> De: Bruce Schuchardt >>>> Enviado: viernes, 26 de junio de 2020 17:37 >>>> Para: dev@geode.apache.org >>>> Asunto: Re: Fate of master branch >>>> >>>> Let's just delete it. I need to do that in my own repos as well. >>>> >>>> On 6/26/20, 8:05 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote: >>>> >>>> Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it. In >>>> keeping with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did something about >>>> removing the insensitive term master from Geode repositories. >>>> >>>> One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a simple >>>> rename from master • main. In our own case, however, master isn’t really >>>> in use for anything vital. We track releases with a tag and a branch to >>>> backport fixes to, and the develop branch is the “source of truth” >>>> latest-and-greatest version of the code. We could thus simply delete >>>> master with no loss I’m aware of. Any opinions? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Blake >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >
Re: Fate of master branch
> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > For geode-examples, there is more impact since master is the default branch > and anyone who has accessed these examples would be affected. I think it’s > still worth it to make the switch. I wonder if it makes sense put current examples in geode-examples/develop and have them depend on what is on geode/develop. Then have branches and tags that mirror geode. It was always a little unclear to me what geode-examples/master was doing. If the two repos kept in lock step I think the confusion goes away. -Jake
Re: Fate of master branch
By just do it, I assume you mean: - Contact delete master where not needed - Rename master to main when needed - Contact INFRA to change the default branch - Update README and CI jobs as needed Across *all* geode repos. Anthony > On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:38 AM, Mark Hanson wrote: > > +1 to delete. No good reason to keep it that I know of. I think I am the > third +1 with no -1s so just do it. > > Thanks, > Mark > >> On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:13 AM, Alexander Murmann wrote: >> >> +1 to deleting. Given we tag everything properly on the other branches, I >> don't see the need for it either. >> >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes >> wrote: >> >>> +1 for deleting master branch. An also for updating the wiki page about >>> branching that Alberto pointed out. >>> >>> De: Bruce Schuchardt >>> Enviado: viernes, 26 de junio de 2020 17:37 >>> Para: dev@geode.apache.org >>> Asunto: Re: Fate of master branch >>> >>> Let's just delete it. I need to do that in my own repos as well. >>> >>> On 6/26/20, 8:05 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote: >>> >>> Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it. In >>> keeping with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did something about >>> removing the insensitive term master from Geode repositories. >>> >>> One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a simple >>> rename from master • main. In our own case, however, master isn’t really >>> in use for anything vital. We track releases with a tag and a branch to >>> backport fixes to, and the develop branch is the “source of truth” >>> latest-and-greatest version of the code. We could thus simply delete >>> master with no loss I’m aware of. Any opinions? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Blake >>> >>> >>> >
Re: Fate of master branch
Let’s check all the repos: geode master is the latest released code work is done on develop (default branch) geode-benchmarks master is the latest released code work is done on develop (default branch) geode-dotnet-core-client master is the latest released code work is done on develop (default branch) geode-native master is the latest released code work is done on develop (default branch) geode-site asf-site is the CMS branch for publishing work is done on master (default branch) geode-examples master is the default branch and latest release work is done on develop geode-kafka-connector work is done on master (default branch) For some repos, removing `master` entirely seems pretty low impact. Side note: when I work in other projects it’s always nice to `git clone XXX` and be working on a known good branch. For the geode repo the default branch is develop so that doesn’t really apply—it’s just as much friction to checkout main as rel/v1.12.0. For geode-examples, there is more impact since master is the default branch and anyone who has accessed these examples would be affected. I think it’s still worth it to make the switch. Are there any effects on CI jobs? README files? Side node #2: GitHub has suggested they will be supporting this name change, but the details of when and how are unclear. And other Apache projects are moving in this direction as well. Anthony > On Jun 26, 2020, at 8:37 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > Let's just delete it. I need to do that in my own repos as well. > > On 6/26/20, 8:05 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote: > >Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it. In keeping > with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did something about removing > the insensitive term master from Geode repositories. > >One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a simple rename > from master • main. In our own case, however, master isn’t really in use for > anything vital. We track releases with a tag and a branch to backport fixes > to, and the develop branch is the “source of truth” latest-and-greatest > version of the code. We could thus simply delete master with no loss I’m > aware of. Any opinions? > >Thanks, > >Blake > >
Re: Fate of master branch
+1 to delete. No good reason to keep it that I know of. I think I am the third +1 with no -1s so just do it. Thanks, Mark > On Jun 26, 2020, at 9:13 AM, Alexander Murmann wrote: > > +1 to deleting. Given we tag everything properly on the other branches, I > don't see the need for it either. > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes > wrote: > >> +1 for deleting master branch. An also for updating the wiki page about >> branching that Alberto pointed out. >> >> De: Bruce Schuchardt >> Enviado: viernes, 26 de junio de 2020 17:37 >> Para: dev@geode.apache.org >> Asunto: Re: Fate of master branch >> >> Let's just delete it. I need to do that in my own repos as well. >> >> On 6/26/20, 8:05 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote: >> >>Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it. In >> keeping with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did something about >> removing the insensitive term master from Geode repositories. >> >>One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a simple >> rename from master • main. In our own case, however, master isn’t really >> in use for anything vital. We track releases with a tag and a branch to >> backport fixes to, and the develop branch is the “source of truth” >> latest-and-greatest version of the code. We could thus simply delete >> master with no loss I’m aware of. Any opinions? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Blake >> >> >>
Re: Fate of master branch
+1 to deleting. Given we tag everything properly on the other branches, I don't see the need for it either. On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:03 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes wrote: > +1 for deleting master branch. An also for updating the wiki page about > branching that Alberto pointed out. > > De: Bruce Schuchardt > Enviado: viernes, 26 de junio de 2020 17:37 > Para: dev@geode.apache.org > Asunto: Re: Fate of master branch > > Let's just delete it. I need to do that in my own repos as well. > > On 6/26/20, 8:05 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote: > > Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it. In > keeping with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did something about > removing the insensitive term master from Geode repositories. > > One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a simple > rename from master • main. In our own case, however, master isn’t really > in use for anything vital. We track releases with a tag and a branch to > backport fixes to, and the develop branch is the “source of truth” > latest-and-greatest version of the code. We could thus simply delete > master with no loss I’m aware of. Any opinions? > > Thanks, > > Blake > > >
RE: Fate of master branch
+1 for deleting master branch. An also for updating the wiki page about branching that Alberto pointed out. De: Bruce Schuchardt Enviado: viernes, 26 de junio de 2020 17:37 Para: dev@geode.apache.org Asunto: Re: Fate of master branch Let's just delete it. I need to do that in my own repos as well. On 6/26/20, 8:05 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote: Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it. In keeping with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did something about removing the insensitive term master from Geode repositories. One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a simple rename from master • main. In our own case, however, master isn’t really in use for anything vital. We track releases with a tag and a branch to backport fixes to, and the develop branch is the “source of truth” latest-and-greatest version of the code. We could thus simply delete master with no loss I’m aware of. Any opinions? Thanks, Blake
Re: Fate of master branch
Let's just delete it. I need to do that in my own repos as well. On 6/26/20, 8:05 AM, "Blake Bender" wrote: Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it. In keeping with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did something about removing the insensitive term master from Geode repositories. One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a simple rename from master • main. In our own case, however, master isn’t really in use for anything vital. We track releases with a tag and a branch to backport fixes to, and the develop branch is the “source of truth” latest-and-greatest version of the code. We could thus simply delete master with no loss I’m aware of. Any opinions? Thanks, Blake
Re: Fate of master branch
I agree also on removing the master branch. As a relatively new member of the community it's been a source of confusion to me when looking at what is said in the wiki about it (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Versioning+and+Branching) and comparing it with the actual practice. Alberto G. From: Jacob Barrett Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 5:26 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Fate of master branch I am 100% in favor or dropping the master branch completely. I felt like it was always a source of confusion. Was it the most recent release or the latest version number. I know we have had issues with even correctly merging the latest version back into it sometimes. I really can’t see any reason for keeping it around. -Jake > On Jun 26, 2020, at 8:05 AM, Blake Bender wrote: > > Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it. In keeping > with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did something about removing > the insensitive term master from Geode repositories. > > One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a simple rename from > master • main. In our own case, however, master isn’t really in use for > anything vital. We track releases with a tag and a branch to backport fixes > to, and the develop branch is the “source of truth” latest-and-greatest > version of the code. We could thus simply delete master with no loss I’m > aware of. Any opinions? > > Thanks, > > Blake >
Re: Fate of master branch
I am 100% in favor or dropping the master branch completely. I felt like it was always a source of confusion. Was it the most recent release or the latest version number. I know we have had issues with even correctly merging the latest version back into it sometimes. I really can’t see any reason for keeping it around. -Jake > On Jun 26, 2020, at 8:05 AM, Blake Bender wrote: > > Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it. In keeping > with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did something about removing > the insensitive term master from Geode repositories. > > One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a simple rename from > master • main. In our own case, however, master isn’t really in use for > anything vital. We track releases with a tag and a branch to backport fixes > to, and the develop branch is the “source of truth” latest-and-greatest > version of the code. We could thus simply delete master with no loss I’m > aware of. Any opinions? > > Thanks, > > Blake >
Fate of master branch
Apologies if this has been addressed already and I missed it. In keeping with other OSS projects, I believe it’s time we did something about removing the insensitive term master from Geode repositories. One choice a lot of projects appear to be going with is a simple rename from master • main. In our own case, however, master isn’t really in use for anything vital. We track releases with a tag and a branch to backport fixes to, and the develop branch is the “source of truth” latest-and-greatest version of the code. We could thus simply delete master with no loss I’m aware of. Any opinions? Thanks, Blake
