git-flow seems a bit overkill to me, for the reasons stated here:
http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html
Although I have to admit I never tried it in anger.
Thanks for the atlassian.com link - really nice site!
Darrel O'Pry (darrel.o...@gmail.com) wrote:
> OT: You can check out the
OT: You can check out the following for some standard git workflows.
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
https://www.atlassian.com/git/workflows
My teams uses a combination of gitflow and pull requests. We maintain a
central repo with gitflow standards with one modification. W
> It sounds like the recommendation for best practice is to convert the
> shipped branch to a tag once that branch is no longer supported? Is there
> a safe way to do this without risking losing the branch?
we wont loose anything. We simply create a tag of that branch and if somebody
think he ne
christopher_dearb...@dell.com (christopher_dearb...@dell.com) wrote:
> Disclaimer: I am not a github expert.
>
> Regarding branch lifecycle:
>
> 1. Work on the release being actively developed continues in a branch
>
> 2. When that release is shipped, another branch is made so that active
On Wednesday 12 March 2014 09:27:20 christopher_dearb...@dell.com wrote:
> Disclaimer: I am not a github expert.
>
> Regarding branch lifecycle:
>
> 1. Work on the release being actively developed continues in a branch
After it was "split of" from the main development branch, yes. As long i
Disclaimer: I am not a github expert.
Regarding branch lifecycle:
1. Work on the release being actively developed continues in a branch
2. When that release is shipped, another branch is made so that active
development on the next release can continue in one branch, and critical fixes
Reminder: Planning call today!
You have been invited to the following event.
Title: OpenCrowbar Planning Call
Agenda and Notes:
http://crowbar.sync.in/community-planning-meeting-2014-03-12
Agenda Summary -
* Review Sprint Accomplishments and challenges
* Demo major checkins
* Plan community
Hi guys,
since this continuously surfaces, could someone from Dell clarify which parts
of their development still take place in the 'crowbar' org? I'm just guessing
here but if crowbar-2.0 development in practice moved to opencrowbar
completely, we could likely re-use the 'master' branch for so
On Wednesday 12 March 2014 14:46:08 Sascha Peilicke wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 March 2014 08:36:03 christopher_dearb...@dell.com wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > Unless there is a compelling reason for doing this (and I haven't heard
> > one), I would propose that we leave everything as-is. I don't see
On Wednesday 12 March 2014 13:59:57 Adam Spiers wrote:
> [BTW no need to send to both crowbar@dell.com and crow...@lists.us.dell.com]
> Sascha Peilicke (sasc...@mailbox.org) wrote:
> > On the other hand, seasoned developers with an eye for beauty are
> > consistently annoyed by the continued over-u
[BTW no need to send to both crowbar@dell.com and crow...@lists.us.dell.com]
Sascha Peilicke (sasc...@mailbox.org) wrote:
> On the other hand, seasoned developers with an eye for beauty are consistently
> annoyed by the continued over-use of Github.
I'd call it abuse or misuse of git rather than
On Wednesday 12 March 2014 08:36:03 christopher_dearb...@dell.com wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Unless there is a compelling reason for doing this (and I haven't heard
> one), I would propose that we leave everything as-is. I don't see a need
> for doing this.
I guess there are two aspects to it:
New
>From my perspective the most compelling reason is that the high number
of obsolete branches clutters several views in various git tools. So
yes, there is definitely a need for doing this. Other people may have
additional reasons.
christopher_dearb...@dell.com (christopher_dearb...@dell.com) wro
Thomas Boerger (tboer...@suse.de) wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:03:21 AM Adam Spiers wrote:
> > That's not true at all. There was plenty of interest in doing it, but
> > the final deletion got postponed due to other activities and holidays.
>
> Sure it's true... They only said that ther
Hey guys,
Unless there is a compelling reason for doing this (and I haven't heard one), I
would propose that we leave everything as-is. I don't see a need for doing
this.
Thanks,
Chris
Dell
-Original Message-
From: crowbar-bounces On Behalf Of Thomas Boerger
Sent: Wednesday, March 1
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:03:21 AM Adam Spiers wrote:
> That's not true at all. There was plenty of interest in doing it, but
> the final deletion got postponed due to other activities and holidays.
Sure it's true... They only said that there are multiple poeple are on
holiday... And that
I have created a Gist with all branches of all barclamps. There you can see
what i think we should do with all these branches.
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/tboerger/c959c41134cf39c5f409/raw/d59b2d250b6fbd323747ef4fe6843326e8edfc0e/gistfile1.txt
I want to start with it on 19th March if nobo
Thomas Boerger (tboer...@suse.de) wrote:
> Guys, are you serious? we started this thread multiple months ago and nobody
> really cared about it.
That's not true at all. There was plenty of interest in doing it, but
the final deletion got postponed due to other activities and holidays.
> And now
Guys, are you serious? we started this thread multiple months ago and nobody
really cared about it. And now we need to create again multiple lists for
repositories you don't work with anymore?
And even if some of the old release branches need a bugfix you can easily
create branch out of the ta
19 matches
Mail list logo
