On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> wrote: > No objection from me, Jan. I don't see the need for a dedicated "develop" > branch at the moment, but then I've not worked intensively on a project which > had one. > > Adam
I think the intention there is if you have a sufficiently large test suite that accurately represents reality. Thus when you're landing features in quick succession you have a place to test the combination before they "go live". I'm not sure we really have that (also considering that we run our test suite locally and don't rely on a central CI server). > > On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 31, 2012, at 13:21 , Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> For my part, I was pretty content with the scheme we agreed to in Dublin >>> (<jira>-<shortdesc>). >>> >>> I would like to discuss the old branches that don't follow any scheme at >>> all, is it time we deleted those? >>> >>> For going forward, I think every jira-shortdesc branch lives forever. 'git >>> branch --no-merged master' will show all the branches we haven't merged in, >>> and I advocate that as our mechanism for figuring out which branches are >>> dead, rather than removing the sometimes-useful history of a ticket. >> >> That sounds sane to me. >> >> It seems to me the the enhanced branching model tries to do two things: >> >> 1. Allow fast and lose merging of a bigger number of feature branches >> to make fast deployment and CI easier and non-blocking. >> 2. Establish a naming convention for branches of different types >> (hotfix, feature etc.) >> >> Please correct me if I am missing something. >> >> For the moment I don't see that we have too many concurrent feature >> branches in CouchDB. So for the time being, I think we are okay with >> treating the release branches as the “develop” branches. >> >> I think it will become obvious when that is going to be no longer >> sufficient and I would totally support starting to use the develop- >> branch method as soon as we hit any issues with the currently >> described setup. >> >> >> As for 2. we tag our branch names with the JIRA number which gives >> us the branch-type as well. So technically the information is one >> lookup away, but I wouldn’t mind changing our branches to >> jiranumber-feature-name-of-the-feature >> >> E.g. 431-feature-cors, or 1500-bugfix-ibrowse-inbox-overflow >> >> * * * >> >> >> If nobody objects*, I'd sum this up two action items: >> >> 1. update our wiki to name branches jiranumber-feature-name >> instead of just jiranumber-name. (Jan) >> >> 2. observe our branch/merge procedure closely to see whether >> we should have a dedicated “develop”-branch. If we do, >> switch to that model. (All) >> >> Cheers >> Jan >> -- >> * as per ASF Lazy Consensus. >> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus) >> >> >>> >>> >>> On 31 October 2012 09:16, Dave Cottlehuber <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 31 October 2012 09:07, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Hello guys, >>>>> >>>>> II would like to discuss a little about our branch naming. Today we have >>>>> conflicting docs somehow: >>>>> >>>>> - >>>> http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Source%20Code%20Repository%20Organization >>>>> >>>>> - http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/ContributorWorkflow >>>>> >>>>> and one another I don't find on the wiki now (without my bookmarks) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe we can make a one page describing the branching workflow and such ? >>>>> >>>>> Also my understanding now is that branch should be named by >>>>> <TicketNumber>_<shortdescr> >>>>> >>>>> which sound good. >>>>> >>>>> I would like to introduce another level to help us when we have to look >>>> on >>>>> different branches. This is mainly based on that doc : >>>>> >>>>> >>>> http://nxvl.blogspot.fr/2012/07/a-continous-delivery-git-branching-model.html >>>>> >>>>> and it could help for continuous integration when we will have it. >>>>> >>>>> In short : >>>>> >>>>> - a develop branch where all patches should land before to go in master. >>>>> This branch can be used for final review and make sure it doesn't break >>>>> anything else. >>>>> >>>>> - a `fix/<TicketNumber>_<shortdescr>` for changes fixing a bug >>>>> - a `feature/<TicketNumber>_<shortdescr>` for new features >>>>> - usual X.X.x branch for releases (those we could name them /release/X.X. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> - benoît >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t4yLz-et74A/UBIES98QPmI/AAAAAAAADGY/S5lwne9xpcM/s1600/releaseFlow.png >>>> >>>> seems very similar to the OTP approach as well. >>>> >>>> Just tell me what I need to do :-) >>>> >>>> A+D >>>> >> >
