Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:52:21PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote: > "Thomas Adam" wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:25:09PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote: > > > I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no > > > questions appears anymore ;) > > > > > > I can add it to the document, no prob. > > > > I've added a few words about this, without making this a rule, which > > hopefully people will follow. > > That's fine, thanks. I've merged this to 'master' now. I don't think there's anything wildly inaccurate about what I've written, so if anyone has any major gripes with the proposed workflow, etc., do please discuss it! -- Thomas Adam -- "Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]
"Thomas Adam" wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:25:09PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote: > > I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no > > questions appears anymore ;) > > > > I can add it to the document, no prob. > > I've added a few words about this, without making this a rule, which > hopefully people will follow. That's fine, thanks. > > -- Thomas Adam > > -- > "Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am > not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.) > >
Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:25:09PM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote: > I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no > questions appears anymore ;) > > I can add it to the document, no prob. I've added a few words about this, without making this a rule, which hopefully people will follow. -- Thomas Adam -- "Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]
"Thomas Adam" wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:30:03AM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote: > > One point: > > Should we use for development branches a special nomination like > > feature_xy, fix_abc? > > Or only a README which describes the feature/fix? > > I don't think that's necessary. Typically, you have this pattern: > > initials/rough-branch-description > > Which denotes---by the initials---who's mainly working on the branch, > so for example: > > ta/fix-clang-warnings > > Should denote that I am working on a branch which fixes warnings from > Clang. Similarly, there's also "git branch --edit-description" which > can further annotate a branch, usually more helpful when issuing > pull-requests. > > Perhaps in a more wider-context, if a branch ends up not having a > prefix, it might mean more than one person is working on it. > > But I don't think this really needs documenting. I think we should. It's better to have such in the documentation so no questions appears anymore ;) I can add it to the document, no prob. > > > To think about this point: > > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > > Hmm. I have always been against this design---this is what lead to the > whole git-flow set of tooling, which completely locks you in to one way > of working. We really do not need anything as complicated as that. Ok. > > -- Thomas Adam > > -- > "Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am > not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.) > >
Re: Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:30:03AM +0100, Thomas Funk wrote: > One point: > Should we use for development branches a special nomination like feature_xy, > fix_abc? > Or only a README which describes the feature/fix? I don't think that's necessary. Typically, you have this pattern: initials/rough-branch-description Which denotes---by the initials---who's mainly working on the branch, so for example: ta/fix-clang-warnings Should denote that I am working on a branch which fixes warnings from Clang. Similarly, there's also "git branch --edit-description" which can further annotate a branch, usually more helpful when issuing pull-requests. Perhaps in a more wider-context, if a branch ends up not having a prefix, it might mean more than one person is working on it. But I don't think this really needs documenting. > To think about this point: > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ Hmm. I have always been against this design---this is what lead to the whole git-flow set of tooling, which completely locks you in to one way of working. We really do not need anything as complicated as that. -- Thomas Adam -- "Deep in my heart I wish I was wrong. But deep in my heart I know I am not." -- Morrissey ("Girl Least Likely To" -- off of Viva Hate.)
Thoughts about DEVELOPERS.md WAS: [travis-ci - fvwm.git master branch is "protected"]
"Thomas Adam" wrote: > I was thinking along the lines of this diff: > > https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/commit/f81b2f4d7412813f12b235d8f1914409da0bbae9.patch > > Which you can view rendered here: > > https://github.com/fvwmorg/fvwm/blob/ta/git-docs/docs/DEVELOPERS.md > > What do others think? Thanks Thomas! It is really good and detailed instruction. One point: Should we use for development branches a special nomination like feature_xy, fix_abc? Or only a README which describes the feature/fix? To think about this point: http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ -- Thomas --