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

Switch to Threaded View
Accumulo, mail # dev - GIT


Copy link to this message
-
Re: GIT
Christopher 2013-06-04, 22:09
I can get behind this also, but I have an additional suggestion that
diverges from the proposed model at
http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ (suggested
earlier in this thread):

I'm not a fan of separate "master" and "develop" branches, since
"master" is only used as a pointer for tracking the latest and
greatest stable tag. I think just a "master" would be fine (for active
development on the next anticipated major release), because I think
it's safe to assume people know what tags are and how to use them if
they want a stable version. If we *really* need a pointer, I'd rather
call it "stable", as it's more explicit.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Josh Elser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 6/4/13 9:35 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Josh Elser<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  >Yay, Git. Wait...
>>>> >
>>>> >I was going to wait to respond until I collected all of the info, but
>>>> >since I still haven't gotten that done yet, I figured I should just say
>>>> >"sure".
>>>> >
>>>> >The one thing I do want to get hammered out is the general workflow we
>>>> >plan to use. I believe that one "unstable" or "development" branch will
>>>> >satisfy most use cases as we typically don't have much active
>>>> development
>>>> >against previous major releases.
>>>> >
>>>> >The thing I don't care for (putting it mildly) is long-running
>>>> >minor-release branches. I'm curious of suggestions that people might
>>>> have
>>>> >for how to work around this. One
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why?  What problems are you thinking of w/ long-running minor release
>>> branches?
>>>
>>
>> I do not like them. It's mainly a personal opinion. Most modern SCM tools
>> (even that 'terrible' SVN) strongly encourage you to release early and
>> often. As such, I don't like having branches named like tags/releases. This
>> is mostly a personal opinion; however, you can also read that as opinions
>> after using git for ~5 years.
>>
>
> Discussed this w/ Christopher and Josh.  I understand Josh's point of view
> a bit better now.  One thing I was unsure about was what to name these
> transient branches for gathering bug fixes.  Christopher suggested using
> snapshots, which seems very natural to me.
>
>   * For serious bugs in 1.4.3  take 1.4.3 tag and create 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT
> branch
>   * Merge bug fixes to 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT from bug fix branches
>   * Eventually tag 1.4.4 and delete 1.4.4-SNAPSHOT branch
>   * 1.4.5-SNAPSHOT would only be created on an as needed basis.
>
> I think this is nicer than leaving a 1.4 branch around.
>
>
>>
>>>  >possibility would be to be git-tag heavy while being more lax on
>>>> official
>>>> >apache releases.
>>>> >
>>>> >Merits:
>>>> >- Less merging through 2-3 branches which a bug-fix might apply
>>>> >(1.4->1.5->1.6)
>>>> >- Less clutter in the branch space (could be moot if we impose some sort
>>>> >of "hierarchy" in branch names, e.g. bugfixes/ACCUMULO-XXXX,
>>>> >minor/ACCUMULO-XXXX)
>>>> >- Quicker availability of fixes for consumers (after a fix, a new tag is
>>>> >made)
>>>> >
>>>> >Downsides:
>>>> >- Could create more work for us as we would be noting new minor
>>>> releases.
>>>> >Does Christopher's release work mitigate some/most of this?
>>>> >- Creating git-tags without making an official release_might_  skirt a
>>>>
>>>> >line on ASF releases. Some artifact that is intended for public
>>>> consumption
>>>> >is meant to follow the release process.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>> It seems like you have a specific workflow in mind, but its not clear to
>>> me
>>> exactly what you are thinking.  Are you planning on elaborating on this
>>> tonight?  Is this workflow written up somewhere?  If its not written up, a
>>> few quick example scenarios would probably help me get on the same page.
>>>
>>
>> That's correct. I don't have the time to make a good write-up right now.