Yes, it seems we all agree then. Great :) About the "labelling" part, yes, that's what I meant.
Yoann Rodière Hibernate NoORM Team yo...@hibernate.org On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 15:52, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > 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
