Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo, mail # dev - [git] Documentation and Plan of Action


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [git] Documentation and Plan of Action
Eric Newton 2013-06-12, 22:52
+1 for Josh just contacting infra to make this happen

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Jun 12, 2013 4:21 PM, "Christopher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Alright, I think I covered all of the content that's needed.
> > >
> > > http://people.apache.org/~elserj/git/git.html
> > >
> > > Disclaimer, I actually got Christopher to say "it's kind of long...".
> Yes,
> > > this was intended. I'd rather be (painfully) explicit front and lift
> out a
> > > TL;DR version from the master document.
> >
> > I did read the whole thing. I would like to see a place for the
> > scenarios I contributed, but other than that, I think it's a
> > sufficient plan for transition.
>
> Are you planning to update it yourself or would you like me to? If you'd
> like me to, please refresh my mind on the specifics :)
> >
> > > _Please_ give feedback now as to what is still unclear about after
> reading
> > > the document. I'd hate to have wasted all of this time writing this to
> just
> > > change our minds again in the near future
> >
> > One thing mentioned is the release instructions (how to create/stage a
> > release). I'm not sure things will work exactly the same as for svn,
> > but I hope they'll be very close (it might require an extra 'git push'
> > or something, after the normal steps expressed in assemble/build.sh).
> > I'd have to do some more experimenting with git and the
> > maven-release-plugin, after which I could write something up. I can do
> > this after the transition, though, and after I'm sure myself how to do
> > it smoothly. I don't think this should be a blocker, though.
> >
> > > Also, please look for text in _emphasis_ as these are things which I do
> not
> > > believe were decided upon as a group. Copied here for your ease:
> > >
> > > 1. Need to ensure that deleting remote branches is not an issue.
> History is
> > > still intact so this should not grind against ASF policy.
> >
> > IMO, this is probably the most important thing remaining to find out,
> > since the described workflow that seems to have consensus assumes
> > this.
>
> Yay for your response from #infra. Thanks for taking the time to ask. I'll
> remove those caveats from the doc.
> >
> > > 2. Do we have a nice write-up of the release policies?
> > >
> > > And, the last thing:
> > >
> > > Is everyone ok with the default branch when cloning the repository
> being
> > > latest unstable branch (synonymous with what "trunk" is now)? If so, is
> > > everyone ok with naming it `master`? This is what my vote is towards.
> >
> > +1, +1
>
> I'll update this section of the doc tonight.
> >
> > > Once we get these questions answered and the process reviewed, I
> believe
> > > we're ready to move forward with the INFRA ticket.
> >
> > +1
>
> Does anyone feel we need to call a vote on this plan? I feel lazy consensus
> is good enough given our previous poll on wanting to move to git in the
> first place.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
>