Hi Fréd, The structure was commenting applicable major repositories: flex-sdk, flex-tlf, flex-asjs and flex-falcon. The whiteboard repo as is, missing sense at the end, because experimental developments or whatever you need to do, what you can do in your own "whiteboard" branch of project whatsoever. Currently handling multiple repositories in my work with phases of integration, customer and branch forks experimental developer for functionality and smoothly. Regarding jira branches, why would not name them well worth?, Would be compatible with the structure git-flow. In my work I name based redmine or trac tickets, do not care and are as follows:
bug/#34254 feature/#2124 structure/#4535 (etc... I thought it would be a good idea to adopt something similar here.. I think we are quite closing the options available, even leading to think that we have similar problems of scalability or when it is not. The GIT project itself, using hundreds of personal and functional branches in its structure and has a remarkable size without problems. Best, -- Jose Barragan Chief Software Architect Codeoscopic Madrid C/. Infanta Mercedes, 92. Planta 5. 505. 28020 Madrid. Tel.: +34 912 94 80 80 On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> That's problem is solved by applying this policy naming > > Because in the withboard projects we don't use jira (at least the moment) > "bug/jira-#2342" doesn't work, "whiteboard/fthomas" is the same than > "fthomas". > It goes beyond that, the pattern should be <UserNameProjectNameBranchName>, > but it's still to risky to go by convention IMO. > > -Fred > > -----Message d'origine----- From: Jose Barragan > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:33 AM > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: Committers - preparing for Git > > That's problem is solved by applying this policy naming: > > master > develop > whiteboard/fthomas > whiteboard/cdutz > whiteboard/mclean > feature/add-maven-descriptor > feature/add-installer-fp-download > feature/add-fp-download > bug/jira-#2342 > > ... > using nominal branches, which are structured to manage virtual folders > > > -- > Jose Barragan > Chief Software Architect > Codeoscopic Madrid > C/. Infanta Mercedes, 92. > Planta 5. 505. > 28020 Madrid. > Tel.: +34 912 94 80 80 > > On Mar 18, 2013, at 2:21 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> can really get quickly messy, I wouldn't take this risk. >> >> Again, if folks have several projects and those projects several branches as >> it common using GIT, without strict maming convention, the list of the >> branches which can grow a lot will mess the people to retreive even their >> own branch, imagine : >> >> fthomas >> cdutz >> mclean >> feature_add_maven_descriptor >> feature_add_installer_fp_download >> feature_add_fp_download >> >> Can you say for sure from those branches, which ones goes with which >> user/project ? >> >>> Why is this a better option? >> >> each one got its own space and can do whatever he wants. >> >>> I could live with leaving the whiteboard in SVN. >> >> Me too. >> >> -Fred >> >> -----Message d'origine----- From: Om >> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:06 AM >> To: dev@flex.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Committers - preparing for Git >> >> On Mar 17, 2013 5:56 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I agree with you Justin, each persons branch is a bad pratice, the repo >> can really get quickly messy, I wouldn't take this risk. >> >> Describe 'messy', please. I am not sure what the concern is. >> >>> Maybe one repo by person is not feasible, how do we know without asking ? >> >> Why is this a better option? >> >>> If it's not feasible, I would stay in SVN too and if I really want to >> work with GIT, I would use git-svn clone, it takes a bit of time to setup >> but once done, it works like a charm. >>> >> >> I could live with leaving the whiteboard in SVN. >> >> This is probably why no other project has whiteboards in git. >> >> Thanks, >> Om >> >>> >>> -Fred >>> >>> -----Message d'origine----- From: Justin Mclean >>> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 1:12 AM >>> >>> To: dev@flex.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Committers - preparing for Git >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>>> I vote for creating a branch for each committer under whiteboard. Anyone >>>> else want to chime in? >>> >>> By branch I assume you mean repo not sure if everyone having their own >> branch make sense as each persons branch would contain different files etc >> etc. >>> >>> But currently using git for the white board area is basically unusable >> (unless you have high speed access) , so we either keep it in SVN or create >> repo for each committer however I'm not sure Infra would go for that second >> option. >>> >>> Justin >> >
