You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@curator.apache.org by Jordan Zimmerman <jo...@jordanzimmerman.com> on 2013/07/21 00:26:14 UTC
[DISCUSS] Git workflow
Currently, we're using a Github-flow-like workflow: a branch for the current release; a master branch; branches for each Jira.
I've come to think that the current release branch is unnecessary and confusing. For example, I keep forgetting if I've merged all needed Jira branches into it. What do folks think about just using master for the current release branch?
Also, feel free to offer any other Git workflow comments/ideas.
====================
Jordan Zimmerman
Re: [DISCUSS] Git workflow
Posted by Jordan Zimmerman <jo...@jordanzimmerman.com>.
> we may also want to create a
> branch each time we advance a minor version, so that we can backport bug
> fixes that are applicable to previous minor versions
The maven release plugin creates a tag for every release. So, it should be easy to go back. I'm going to switch to this methodology. I'll update the wiki, etc.
-JZ
Re: [DISCUSS] Git workflow
Posted by Ioannis Canellos <io...@gmail.com>.
Agree. Releasing directly from master is so much easier.
Since we are already using semantic versions, we may also want to create a
branch each time we advance a minor version, so that we can backport bug
fixes that are applicable to previous minor versions (e.g. we could use a
curator-2.0.x if we ever going to need a curator-2.0.2-incubating for bug
fixing).
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> Currently, we're using a Github-flow-like workflow: a branch for the
> current release; a master branch; branches for each Jira.
>
> I've come to think that the current release branch is unnecessary and
> confusing. For example, I keep forgetting if I've merged all needed Jira
> branches into it. What do folks think about just using master for the
> current release branch?
>
> Also, feel free to offer any other Git workflow comments/ideas.
>
> ====================
> Jordan Zimmerman
--
*Ioannis Canellos*
*
**
Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com
**
Twitter: iocanel
*
Re: [DISCUSS] Git workflow
Posted by Jordan Zimmerman <jo...@jordanzimmerman.com>.
It's less likely, that's all. It's still a possibility.
-JZ
On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:04 PM, Jay Zarfoss <jz...@netflix.com> wrote:
> Also, how is forgetting to merge a Jira into a release branch different
> from forgetting to merge a Jira into the master? ;-)
Re: [DISCUSS] Git workflow
Posted by Jay Zarfoss <jz...@netflix.com>.
I don't think I mind the branch per-release. It seems to make sense to me
if we're going to have well-defined and relatively infrequent release
points.... the big complaints I've heard about the standard github flow is
it doesn't work well with the continuous deployment paradigm.
Also, how is forgetting to merge a Jira into a release branch different
from forgetting to merge a Jira into the master? ;-)
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> Currently, we're using a Github-flow-like workflow: a branch for the
> current release; a master branch; branches for each Jira.
>
> I've come to think that the current release branch is unnecessary and
> confusing. For example, I keep forgetting if I've merged all needed Jira
> branches into it. What do folks think about just using master for the
> current release branch?
>
> Also, feel free to offer any other Git workflow comments/ideas.
>
> ====================
> Jordan Zimmerman