ahh… we have the same content twice on the wiki. I deleted the duplicate and edited it as per the comment from daan.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git#Git-ProposedGitflowbasedCheck-inProcess +1 for starting a vote thread ~Rajani On 31-Jul-2014, at 3:04 pm, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com<mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com>> wrote: Hi, Please use this section on the wiki to propose/fix/modify the new proposed check-in process: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git#Git-ProposedGitflowbasedCheck-inProcess My feedback: - I don’t want to enforce/adopt the gitflow model "as-is", like not rename master branch - the aim IMO is to make master stable for people to work with, so we don’t break it often - we do feature/bug-fix/any-work in our own branch and merge/cherry-pick/what-have-you when it has tests and it is stable (lazy definition as per committer’s discretion) - the git commit cherry-picking/merging should be from firm/stable branches to unstable i.e. from release branches (such as 4.x) to master or developer’s own branch; the reverse is done only when the work/commits/check-ins are tested/firm/stable We’ve so many threads with so many emails that we’re sort of causing split-brain issue for ourselves on this issue. I’m not sure which one to follow now -- the length of a discussion thread is inversely proportional to the interest of community members on the thread. Let’s start a new vote thread and drop discussion on other threads? On 31-Jul-2014, at 11:17 am, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:46 AM, Rajani Karuturi <rajani.karut...@citrix.com> wrote: to start using git-flow from 4.5+, we need to have the latest stable version which can be master and I assumed that would be 4.4 point 2. should be modified assuming no previous releases 2a. branch ‘develop’ from 'master’ 2b. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop 2c. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done. Are we waiting for Leo to put up a proposal? Anyone really :) Someone mentioned: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Git You could add a section on 'gitflow' and basically dump your bullet list. Then we can edit it and call a vote . ~Rajani On 31-Jul-2014, at 1:09 pm, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: I answerred this from my phone but it did't get through so here my comment again: We can't cut a new master from 4.4 without enormous work. I spend two days on getting 4.4 in line with 4.4-forward and as Leo has shown the work for getting all features from master into master will be much greater. So the proposal should be that we maintain 4.4 as traditional and start this work flow from 4.5+ As for the additions you gave; these are reviewer guidelines for my part not requirements to a work flow. In general I am +1 on putting this to vote. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Rajani Karuturi <rajani.karut...@citrix.com> wrote: For the git flow: 1. We agreed to follow git-flow explained here http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ 2. This is the proposal for first cut 2a. rename 'master' to 'develop’ 2b. branch a new 'master' from ‘4.4’ and update tags with release/4.4.0 2c. branch ‘release/4.5' from the develop 2d. merge ‘release/4.5' to master once the release voting is done. 3. This would be the flow for a hot fix 3a. branch off from the release tag on master. in this case it would be release/4.4.0 3b. commit the fixes in hotfix/4.4.1 3c. do the release 3d. merge to develop 3e. merge to master and update tags 3f. delete hot fix branch 4. for any LTS release create a support branch when required using git-flow support 4a. http://stackoverflow.com/a/16866118/201514 using the git-flow git extension available at https://github.com/nvie/gitflow can reduce the number of commands/errors In addition: 1. Every commit should have unit tests 2. every feature/merge request should have unit and marvin integration tests 3. A commit should not have check style or find bugs issues 4. any coverity issues reported in the new code should be addressed immediately 5. every developer should run the BVT on the simulator before doing a checkin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes%2C+using+Simulator<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Validating+check-ins+for+your+local+changes,+using+Simulator>) (This I am not very sure. May be we should let jenkins handle it and report integration failures if any?) Please add/amend if I missed anything. Can we call for a vote on this and freeze this without further delay? ~Rajani -- Daan Regards, Rohit Yadav Software Architect, ShapeBlue M. +41 779015219 | rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com Blog: bhaisaab.org | Twitter: @_bhaisaab Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
