Plus if you read the discussion below the article, you will see that people agree that this model doesn’t work well for the case when the product support maintenance for older releases, like CS does.
"I think this model does not work for bugfixing in older releases, though. It messes up the neat ordering. 1. Say we have released Version 1.0.1 and later added features and released 1.1.0. 2. We discover a bug in 1.0.1 and want to fix it in both version 3. We have to add 1.0.2 after 1.1.0 in master and then directly atfer (or before) also 1.1.1.” Thanks, Alena. On 8/7/14, 10:19 AM, "Alena Prokharchyk" <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >Not quite. That’s what the article suggests: > >"If you want to fix bugs for older releases or do any other develop there, >you will fork a support branch from the appropriate commit in master (you >will have all versions ever created there). These branches are just >started and not intended to be merged back to master nor develop. This is >usually fine, as fixes to "ancient" releases or features requested by >customers to be implemented in "ancient" releases can't or should not go >back into master. If you still think, you want to port a fix to your main >development line (represented by master and develop), just start a hotfix, >cherry-pick your changes and finish the hotfix." > > >That doesn’t seem right to me - that NOT ALL the fixes done to 4.2.1/4.3.1 >maintenance releases for example, will go back to master/develop? Plus it >suggests “cherry-picking” stuff if we decide that some fixes worth being >back ported. Cherry-picking again? :) Defeats our cherry-pick witch hunt >purpose. I think ALL fixes done to any forked branch, should make it into >master via merge. > > >On 8/7/14, 6:39 AM, "Tracy Phillips" <tracp...@weberize.com> wrote: > >>Alena, >> >>Check this out and see if it would resolve your concern regarding >>maintaining multiple releases >> >>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16562339/git-flow-and-master-with-mult >>i >>ple-parallel-release-branches >> >>git-flow uses support branches to support releases that are not on >>master. >> >> >> >> >> >>On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 8/6/14, 3:18 PM, "Sebastien Goasguen" <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >[top posting, apologies in advance] >>> > >>> >I am on vacation, so I will go straight to it :) >>> > >>> >This all discussion is not about gitflow specifically, it is about >>> >modifying our git workflow and our commit practices to something more >>> >standard that can: >>> > >>> >- ultimately help improve quality (in itself it won't but it can help >>>lay >>> >a foundation) >>> >- provide a stable master (it keeps breaking, it has regressions, it >>> >moves really fast etc..) >>> >- help cut releases >>> > >>> >Any committer has write privileges and can do whatever it wants to the >>> >repos, so we need to get a nice big consensus on what problems we are >>> >trying to solve, and how best to get there. So let's not make this a >>> >debate of yeah or neah gitflow. >>> > >>> >A better CI is coming but it's not yet there and we have no ETA. Even >>> >with a CI infra in place, we will need commit discipline to improve >>> >quality (covertity, unitests, simulator tests). Changing our git >>>commit >>> >practices has no cost (just emails and self discipline), so can we >>>agree >>> >to do that first ? >>> > >>> >Here are couple high level things that I have in mind ( and I confess >>>I >>> >have not read the entire threads on this yet and ti ma conflict with >>> >gitflow). >>> > >>> >-Master: what goes in master is only something that has been put into >>>a >>> >release (aside from the maintenance releases fixes maybe...). Master >>>is >>> >the base for any release branch (until we get to 4.5, master will >>>still >>> >see some high churn to stabilize it, after 4.5 release branch is cut >>>we >>> >should enter into a stable master mode). >>> >>> >>> Sebastian, we can’t adopt this particular high level thing - when >>>master >>> reflects the latest stable release with the tags for all previous >>>releases >>> - because support maintenance releases for multiple CS versions in >>> parallel. And while master’s latest version is 4.4, 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 can >>>be >>> released. And there is no way to merge them back to master w/o breaking >>> the branch history. >>> >>> The model when master reflects the latest released branch, can be used >>>for >>> the systems with rolling upgrades only, no maintenance releases for >>> previous versions of the software. >>> >>> To get more details, please read the latest email exchange (today’s) on >>> git workflow between me/Rohit and Dave Nalley. >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> >-Release: from the time a release branch is cut, features are only >>>merged >>> >by RM. hot fixes are only merged by RM. the RM is responsible for the >>> >entire release process. Since he defines the scope and is the primary >>> >person responsible to check BVT for the release branch he should be >>>able >>> >to release on-time. Major release gets merged back into master. >>> > >>> >-Devs: folks working on features and fixes are responsible to merge >>>into >>> >the develop branch and call the RM for a merge into a release branch >>> >(this may vary with gitflow, where release branch is cut from develop) >>> > >>> >Once we have CI, it should run on every branch. >>> > >>> >-sebastien >>> > >>> > >>> >On Aug 6, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Alena Prokharchyk >>> ><alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Edison, thank you for raising the concern about the BVT/CI. Somebody >>> >> mentioned earlier that we should separate git workflow >>>implementation >>> >>from >>> >> the CI effort, but I do think we have to do in in conjunction. >>>Otherwise >>> >> what is the point in introducing staging/develop branch? If there is >>>no >>> >> daily automation run verifying all the code merged from >>>hotFixes/feature >>> >> branches (and possibly reverting wrong checkins), we can as well >>>merge >>> >>the >>> >> code directly to master. >>> >> >>> >> -Alena. >>> >> >>> >> On 8/6/14, 2:30 PM, "Edison Su" <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>>> From: Alena Prokharchyk [mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com] >>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 12:59 PM >>> >>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>> >>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] git workflow >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 8/6/14, 12:52 PM, "Erik Weber" <terbol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >>> >>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> Agree with you, Rohit. The changes to the git model we use, are >>> >>>>>> needed indeed. But we should address only the problems that CS >>> >>>>>>faces, >>> >>>>>> and the main problem - quality control. The proposal should be >>> >>>>>> limited just to the changes that are really needed for the CS, >>>and >>> >>>>>> that will work with the current CS model (minor maintenance >>> >>>>>>releases >>> >>>>>> support is a part of it) >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Theoretically you don't really have to change anything other than >>> >>>>> merging instead of cherry picking. >>> >>>>> That is the main issue from a release perspective. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> But I still think there are good reasons to do so; >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> 1) using a well known way of handling code/releases instantly >>>tells >>> >>>>>new >>> >>>>> contributors / committers how we work. add to the fact that there >>> >>>>> exists tools to help doing this correctly is a bonus. >>> >>>>> 2) having a known stable (atleast in theory) release as master is >>> >>>>>good >>> >>>>> practice. although not many users will be running from git, i >>>still >>> >>>>> consider it to be good practice. >>> >>>>> 3) there is a huge belief in this thread/discussion that as long >>>as >>> >>>>> something passes CI / BVT it is considered stable. The fact is >>>that >>> >>>>>it >>> >>>>> is not. Take the recent 4.4 release as a good example, where a >>>new >>> >>>>> install was not working at all at the point of release. Now, this >>>is >>> >>>>> more a CI / test coverage issue than git workflow issue, but i >>>find >>> >>>>>it >>> >>>>> weird to use as an argument for not improving the workflow. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> Erik >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I¹m not arguing against keeping master release stable; I advocate >>>for >>> >>>> it. >>> >>> >>> >>> +1, we need to take action to make sure master is stable. Frankly >>> >>> speaking, >>> >>> I don't want to fix the regression on the master, I assume nobody >>>want >>> >>>to >>> >>> do that. >>> >>> Here is the list of regression issues(not introduced by myself) I >>>fixed >>> >>> on master after 4.4: >>> >>> >>> >>> CLOUDSTACK-7123 >>> >>> CLOUDSTACK-7110 >>> >>> CLOUDSTACK-7166 >>> >>> CLOUDSTACK-7164 >>> >>> Most of this issues will be caught even by a simulator BVT. I want >>>to >>> >>> make it clear, that, >>> >>> If we don't take action to reduce/eliminate the regression as much >>>as >>> >>> possible in the future, I will not fix any of this regression >>>issues. >>> >>> I remember there is discussion about setting up a staging branch, >>>run >>> >>>BVT >>> >>> against it for each commit, what's the conclusion if any? Why so >>> >>> difficult to make it happen? Is there anything I can help to make >>>it >>> >>> happen? >>> >>> >>> >>>> But we can¹t adopt git workflow way of keeping master branch to be >>>a >>> >>>> reflection of the latest release branch. It will not work with our >>>way >>> >>>> of >>> >>>> handling maintenance releases for multiple versions of CS - see >>> >>>>another >>> >>>> thread. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> +1, I'll -1 on any of proposal, if it doesn't solve problem most of >>>us >>> >>> are concerning about. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Instead, master branch should reflect the latest code that passed >>>the >>> >>>> CI test >>> >>>> (the code merged from *develop after CI passes). The release >>>branches >>> >>>> should be cut from stable master branch - it will ensure that we >>>won¹t >>> >>>> face >>> >>>> last minute blockers as for 4.4, because master IS a stable >>>branch. >>> >>>> And yes, we should do merges instead of cherry picking. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >
