The 3rd one (duplicate columns in Edit Symbol fields) is mine. I’ll get it merged.
Cheers, Jeff. > On 20 Jul 2018, at 10:14, Maciej Sumiński <maciej.sumin...@cern.ch> wrote: > > We already have slightly diverged the branches, I think it shows that it > is hard to maintain two branches with cherry-picking. Details below: > > Commits present in master, but not in 5.1: > commit c585964da98269db2cabf06daafb0b11cae3a4ec > fix coding style issues. > > commit 840ad7f68053d000dc6d46661d05d9d4be074704 > Add SH_ARC collisions > > commit 01c5bdfb8f49a84f2e5fae5c7fc5729a47c8ef0f > Fix bug with duplicate columns in Edit Symbol Fields. > > > Commits present in 5.1, but not in master: > commit 42deb68575a5a415b0970be4a89676f1986fa196 > Eeschema: minor fix in edit label dialog (incorrect unit value ) > > On 07/19/2018 07:08 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: >> This was pretty much how I saw the development working which is why I >> created a separate 5.1 branch. However, if we are not going to allow >> new features to be merged into the master branch (6.0-dev) (and it seems >> that is the consensus) then I propose that we do all of the 5.1 >> development in the master branch. I would rather not delete the 5.1 >> branch because the tags and version strings are already in place and >> reverting all the changes thus far would be painful. Assuming 5.1 and >> master are currently the same, we can either merge from master to 5.1 as >> we go or one big merge when we are ready to start creating 5.1 release >> candidates. I would prefer that we merge as we go which will keep the >> two branches synced an minimize issues. Is this acceptable to everyone? >> >> On 7/19/2018 12:15 PM, Carsten Schoenert wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> for me as a person which doesn't do any active source code development >>> on KiCad it looks like there is some confusion in the wild what will or >>> should happen in which branch. >>> >>> Sorry if I haven't get it until now, what are the goals of the branch >>> 5.1 the project wanted to archive? >>> >>> And what is 6.0, master or $(what else) are for? >>> >>> If these questions can be answered it will be much more clear what >>> development should happen in which branch and what should be merged into >>> which other branch. >>> >>> KiCad has now more active developers than ever I think, but I can't >>> really see a branch model that is fitting the current and future >>> situations. Out there are various branching models and the KiCad project >>> needs to decide which will work best for the project. The classical >>> master plus release branches isn't working great anymore if you want to >>> work on multiple parts in parallel. >>> >>> I suggest to have a look at the following website. >>> >>> https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ >>> >>> It describes what options are count and how a workflow would look like, >>> I think it would be also usable for KiCad (not in a full blown version). >>> >>> In the long term you wont do cherry-picking for the plain development as >>> this wont work smoothly at one point anymore (as Wayne already >>> mentioned). Single cherry-picking is fine, but in the end you will come >>> to merge commits as you mostly want to have all the new code in a later >>> release. Every upstream project I know is working this way. >>> >>> Backporting security or hot fixes are slightly different and require >>> often cherry-picking with small or much modifications as you wont >>> introduce new features into old code by merges. But also this can be >>> done in a local feature branch which gets merged then into the stable >>> release branch. Depends mostly on the amount of the needed backport. >>> >>> So to call it again, what is the branch 5.1 intended for? Only for the >>> GTK+3 fixes? If yes it's fine to do it here and merged these changes >>> (which will be needed also in the current ongoing nightly development) >>> into master, develop, 6.0 or what ever named branch. Just renaming >>> master into something different without a common and required workflow >>> is nothing, then it's really just another name. >>> >>> So I would propose the following as there are already some branches out >>> there which we all need to know and to handle. >>> >>> 5.0 will get all the fixes which will reflect in versions 5.0.x, commits >>> will mostly get cherry-picked from master. Hopefully not that much. >>> >>> 5.1 will get at least the GTK+3 adjustments and will finally cover all >>> versions 5.1.x (like 5.0 for 5.0.x). The GTK stuff is developed in this >>> branch and will be merged into master. Any other changes than GTK+3 >>> which should be released with versions 5.1.x are also made here and get >>> merged into master. >>> >>> master is and will be the main nightly development channel. All changes >>> here are mainly for any releases greater than 5.x.x. >>> >>> This all are just my thoughts as I would like to see it, the above >>> suggestion is based on some experiences I have made with other projects >>> and work. Please remember that also the l10n and documentation trees are >>> related to this! The base for all future work for all side needs to be >>> clear early as possible. >>> >>> Anyhow ... >>> >>> (Hmm, I don't wanted to a top posting but my answer wasn't fitting to >>> any made statement.) >>> >>> Am 19.07.2018 um 17:19 schrieb Wayne Stambaugh: >>>> You are preaching to the choir. I did most of the maintenance on the >>>> 4.0 branch. Initially it was easy but it didn't take long for it to >>>> become a PITA. If no one else objects, I would be more than happy to >>>> make that the policy. If that is indeed what we want to do, I would >>>> delete the 5.1 branch. It will push v6 development back significantly. >>>> >>>> On 7/19/2018 11:10 AM, Jon Evans wrote: >>>>> FWIW, as someone who is also maintaining parallel feature branches, I >>>>> agree with Orson and John. Now that we have committed to this 5.1 idea, >>>>> we should just make it happen in master. I think if we keep both master >>>>> and 5.1 branch running in parallel, inevitably one or the other of them >>>>> will be less tested / more broken unless people spend a bunch of time >>>>> doing the work of keeping them synchronized manually. The cost of this >>>>> doesn't seem to outweigh the benefit of being able to merge some 6.0 >>>>> features into master sooner. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:03 AM John Beard <john.j.be...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:john.j.be...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Wayne Stambaugh >>>>> <stambau...@gmail.com <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> Unless we are going to prohibit new features (new file formats, >>>>> new tool >>>>>> framework for eeschema, etc.) from being merged into the dev branch >>>>>> until 5.1 is released, I disagree. If we want to only work on 5.1 in >>>>>> the dev branch, then I'm OK with this proposal. >>>>> >>>>> This is essentially my proposal - limit dev branch changes to 5.1 >>>>> features, uncontroversial maintenance and bugfixes. >>>>> >>>>> If people want to work on features for 6 now, that can be done in >>>>> separate branches, and the onus for keeping it rebased onto the 5.1 >>>>> changes is on them, rather than forcing the 5.1 workers to deal with >>>>> conflicts. Otherwise, whoever is working on 5.1 features like the >>>>> GTK3/GAL stuff and printing, will have to continually port their work >>>>> between the two branches. >>>>> >>>>> If 5.1 changes are unlikely to be substantially affected by 6.0-facing >>>>> changes, then perhaps this limitation is not useful. >>>>> >>>>>> There should be nothing in the 5.1 branch that is not also in the dev >>>>>> branch so everything in the 5.1 branch should be tested in the dev >>>>>> branch builds. >>>>> >>>>> In theory, yes, but if fixes need to be manually ported as the >>>>> branches diverge, it's possible to fail to fix, or break in new ways, >>>>> one branch or the other. If a 5.1 branch exists in parallel to 6.0, >>>>> someone will have to take responsibility to ensure the appropriate >>>>> fixes are identified, ported and tested as needed. In the Linux world, >>>>> this is the unglamorous, arduous (and vital) job of the stable branch >>>>> maintainers. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not against parallel branches if someone is willing to step up to >>>>> be a stable branch maintainer for 5.1. In fact, I'd be thrilled to get >>>>> nice new stuff dropping into the dev branch. However, changes that >>>>> need to be in both branches are not trivially rebasable, that job will >>>>> soon become decidedly not-fun. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> John >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
