We seem to be "arguing" the same thing. As I said above, I am fine with moving it upstream. Just making sure everyone has the same expectations (re-writing, eventual removal, etc) of that upstream branch because they are not typical of our upstream branches.
I would not really call it "hidden away", but I agree that it should be easy to access. Not sure what you mean about your "labelling" point. Label how? Maybe you are referring to the "expectations"? I agree that the name `wip/...` already implies these expectations. Again, that is exactly why we borrowed that convention from Vlad in the first place. On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:27 AM Yoann Rodiere <yo...@hibernate.org> wrote: > I may be wrong, but I understood your message as an argument that moving > 6.0 to upstream would be bad, because having a topic branch upstream is not > a good practice. > > Topic branches are typically short-lived and focus on a specific feature > or bugfix. I agree topic branches in upstream would be a mess. > > But let's be honest: wip/6.0 has been around for years, includes tons of > different improvements, and has impacts in many places of the codebase > (nearly 10,000 files from what I can see) . It hardly qualifies as a topic > branch anymore, and even if we extend the definition to include such a > massive changeset, we can probably agree it's not your typical "change a > dozen files and we're done" topic branch. Wouldn't an atypical branch call > for an atypical workflow? > > Besides... and perhaps more importantly, it's the branch everyone seems to > be working on these days. Once 6.0.0.Alpha1 has been released, it would > seem odd for all that work to be hidden away in someone's fork, be it the > project leader's. If the branch is regularly rewritten, so be it: at least > it should be easily found. > > Again, no problem with labelling it differently to make clear that we > offer no guarantee of a stable history on that branch. To me, the name > "wip/6.0" makes this very clear already. > > > Yoann Rodière > Hibernate NoORM Team > yo...@hibernate.org > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 14:42, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:22 AM Davide D'Alto <dav...@hibernate.org> >> wrote: >> >> > +1 for the creation of the branch upstream and everything Yoann said. >> > >> > One curiosity, once there is an alpha, why would you delete the whole >> > branch? >> > Couldn't you change everything on the existing branch without deleting >> it? >> > It's unusual to rewrite the history of upstream branches but we have >> > done it before. >> > >> >> Well first, I never said it would be deleted after the Alpha. I said it >> would be deleted *at some point*, meaning at some point after 6 is moved >> to >> master. >> >> Also, IMO, topic branches upstream are generally speaking a very bad idea. >> So this is something we hardly ever do - maybe y'all do on other projects, >> dunno. But either way, it is very common for a topic branch to go away >> eventually. >> >> As far as re-writing history, sure it is unusual but we are already in the >> realm of unusual merely by having a topic branch upstream >> > _______________________________________________ >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
