You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@eagle.apache.org by Don Bosco Durai <bo...@apache.org> on 2016/08/08 02:47:20 UTC
Re: [Discuss] How do you think rename "develop" branch to
"trunk"branch so that able to close pull request automatically?
I also feel that moving development to “trunk” will be a good thing. Right now, synchronizing the final release branch to the “trunk” seems to be a redundant activity. In the release notes, we can always ask the users to use the release branch and also when we create sub releases, they would be off the previous release branch, so it would just work naturally.
Bosco
On 8/7/16, 7:12 PM, "Michael Wu" <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds good to me, as long as it benefits the project.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Hao Chen <ha...@apache.org> wrote:
> Currently we are faced a problem that we can't close the pull request from
> contributors automatically.
>
> When a pull request is merged in develop branch, github could not close the
> pull request automatically and committers don't have permission to close
> the pull request manually on github page, so that we have to ask the
> contributor to close the branch manually otherwise there would be lots of
> "OPEN" pull requests listed though most are merged.
>
> Learning from github service:
>
> "
> To close this pull request, make a commit to your *master/trunk *branch
> with (at least) the following in the commit message:
>
> This closes #305
> "
>
> Commits with *"Closes #PULL-REQUEST-ID"* will only work on master/trunk, in
> fact *trunk* branch should be our *develo *in purpose and would be better
> for management.
>
> Any comments are appreciated.
>
> - Hao
>
Re: [Discuss] How do you think rename "develop" branch to
"trunk"branch so that able to close pull request automatically?
Posted by Hao Chen <ha...@apache.org>.
Thanks very much for all the feedback.
*As a conclusion, based on the above discussions, eagle community
agree consistently to rename "develop" branch to "master" branch as the
main development branch. The action will happen in one or two days.*
- Hao
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Liangfei.Su <su...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for master, trunk looks more legacy svn naming.. :)
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Edward Zhang <yo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Today master branch is only used for mirroring latest stable release
> branch
> > because in the first impression, people will use master to build and run.
> >
> > To avoid too many breaks in master branch, Eagle community starts to use
> > develop branch for bleeding development work.
> >
> > But that is redundant for mirroring latest stable release to master.
> >
> > So if we can use master as develop branch, that should be good as anyway
> we
> > should make master to be very stable.
> >
> > Vote master branch if that is common practice to use master as latest
> > development work.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Edward
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to move it to master.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 moving to “trunk” or “master”.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the name. These days more projects use the name “master”
> > rather
> > > > than “trunk”. (At least, that’s my impression. Hive, for instance,
> used
> > > > “trunk” when it was primarily svn, and switched to “master” now it’s
> > > based
> > > > on git.) But frankly either would be fine.
> > > >
> > > > Julian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Aug 7, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Don Bosco Durai <bo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I also feel that moving development to “trunk” will be a good
> thing.
> > > > Right now, synchronizing the final release branch to the “trunk”
> seems
> > to
> > > > be a redundant activity. In the release notes, we can always ask the
> > > users
> > > > to use the release branch and also when we create sub releases, they
> > > would
> > > > be off the previous release branch, so it would just work naturally.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bosco
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8/7/16, 7:12 PM, "Michael Wu" <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds good to me, as long as it benefits the project.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Hao Chen <ha...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Currently we are faced a problem that we can't close the pull
> > request
> > > > from
> > > > >> contributors automatically.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> When a pull request is merged in develop branch, github could not
> > > close
> > > > the
> > > > >> pull request automatically and committers don't have permission to
> > > close
> > > > >> the pull request manually on github page, so that we have to ask
> the
> > > > >> contributor to close the branch manually otherwise there would be
> > lots
> > > > of
> > > > >> "OPEN" pull requests listed though most are merged.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Learning from github service:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "
> > > > >> To close this pull request, make a commit to your *master/trunk
> > > *branch
> > > > >> with (at least) the following in the commit message:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This closes #305
> > > > >> "
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Commits with *"Closes #PULL-REQUEST-ID"* will only work on
> > > > master/trunk, in
> > > > >> fact *trunk* branch should be our *develo *in purpose and would be
> > > > better
> > > > >> for management.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Any comments are appreciated.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - Hao
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] How do you think rename "develop" branch to
"trunk"branch so that able to close pull request automatically?
Posted by "Liangfei.Su" <su...@gmail.com>.
+1 for master, trunk looks more legacy svn naming.. :)
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Edward Zhang <yo...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Today master branch is only used for mirroring latest stable release branch
> because in the first impression, people will use master to build and run.
>
> To avoid too many breaks in master branch, Eagle community starts to use
> develop branch for bleeding development work.
>
> But that is redundant for mirroring latest stable release to master.
>
> So if we can use master as develop branch, that should be good as anyway we
> should make master to be very stable.
>
> Vote master branch if that is common practice to use master as latest
> development work.
>
> Thanks
> Edward
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to move it to master.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 moving to “trunk” or “master”.
> > >
> > > Regarding the name. These days more projects use the name “master”
> rather
> > > than “trunk”. (At least, that’s my impression. Hive, for instance, used
> > > “trunk” when it was primarily svn, and switched to “master” now it’s
> > based
> > > on git.) But frankly either would be fine.
> > >
> > > Julian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Aug 7, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Don Bosco Durai <bo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I also feel that moving development to “trunk” will be a good thing.
> > > Right now, synchronizing the final release branch to the “trunk” seems
> to
> > > be a redundant activity. In the release notes, we can always ask the
> > users
> > > to use the release branch and also when we create sub releases, they
> > would
> > > be off the previous release branch, so it would just work naturally.
> > > >
> > > > Bosco
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 8/7/16, 7:12 PM, "Michael Wu" <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good to me, as long as it benefits the project.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Hao Chen <ha...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Currently we are faced a problem that we can't close the pull
> request
> > > from
> > > >> contributors automatically.
> > > >>
> > > >> When a pull request is merged in develop branch, github could not
> > close
> > > the
> > > >> pull request automatically and committers don't have permission to
> > close
> > > >> the pull request manually on github page, so that we have to ask the
> > > >> contributor to close the branch manually otherwise there would be
> lots
> > > of
> > > >> "OPEN" pull requests listed though most are merged.
> > > >>
> > > >> Learning from github service:
> > > >>
> > > >> "
> > > >> To close this pull request, make a commit to your *master/trunk
> > *branch
> > > >> with (at least) the following in the commit message:
> > > >>
> > > >> This closes #305
> > > >> "
> > > >>
> > > >> Commits with *"Closes #PULL-REQUEST-ID"* will only work on
> > > master/trunk, in
> > > >> fact *trunk* branch should be our *develo *in purpose and would be
> > > better
> > > >> for management.
> > > >>
> > > >> Any comments are appreciated.
> > > >>
> > > >> - Hao
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] How do you think rename "develop" branch to
"trunk"branch so that able to close pull request automatically?
Posted by Edward Zhang <yo...@apache.org>.
Today master branch is only used for mirroring latest stable release branch
because in the first impression, people will use master to build and run.
To avoid too many breaks in master branch, Eagle community starts to use
develop branch for bleeding development work.
But that is redundant for mirroring latest stable release to master.
So if we can use master as develop branch, that should be good as anyway we
should make master to be very stable.
Vote master branch if that is common practice to use master as latest
development work.
Thanks
Edward
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 to move it to master.
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1 moving to “trunk” or “master”.
> >
> > Regarding the name. These days more projects use the name “master” rather
> > than “trunk”. (At least, that’s my impression. Hive, for instance, used
> > “trunk” when it was primarily svn, and switched to “master” now it’s
> based
> > on git.) But frankly either would be fine.
> >
> > Julian
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 7, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Don Bosco Durai <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I also feel that moving development to “trunk” will be a good thing.
> > Right now, synchronizing the final release branch to the “trunk” seems to
> > be a redundant activity. In the release notes, we can always ask the
> users
> > to use the release branch and also when we create sub releases, they
> would
> > be off the previous release branch, so it would just work naturally.
> > >
> > > Bosco
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/7/16, 7:12 PM, "Michael Wu" <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me, as long as it benefits the project.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Hao Chen <ha...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Currently we are faced a problem that we can't close the pull request
> > from
> > >> contributors automatically.
> > >>
> > >> When a pull request is merged in develop branch, github could not
> close
> > the
> > >> pull request automatically and committers don't have permission to
> close
> > >> the pull request manually on github page, so that we have to ask the
> > >> contributor to close the branch manually otherwise there would be lots
> > of
> > >> "OPEN" pull requests listed though most are merged.
> > >>
> > >> Learning from github service:
> > >>
> > >> "
> > >> To close this pull request, make a commit to your *master/trunk
> *branch
> > >> with (at least) the following in the commit message:
> > >>
> > >> This closes #305
> > >> "
> > >>
> > >> Commits with *"Closes #PULL-REQUEST-ID"* will only work on
> > master/trunk, in
> > >> fact *trunk* branch should be our *develo *in purpose and would be
> > better
> > >> for management.
> > >>
> > >> Any comments are appreciated.
> > >>
> > >> - Hao
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [Discuss] How do you think rename "develop" branch to
"trunk"branch so that able to close pull request automatically?
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
+1 to move it to master.
On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 moving to “trunk” or “master”.
>
> Regarding the name. These days more projects use the name “master” rather
> than “trunk”. (At least, that’s my impression. Hive, for instance, used
> “trunk” when it was primarily svn, and switched to “master” now it’s based
> on git.) But frankly either would be fine.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Don Bosco Durai <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I also feel that moving development to “trunk” will be a good thing.
> Right now, synchronizing the final release branch to the “trunk” seems to
> be a redundant activity. In the release notes, we can always ask the users
> to use the release branch and also when we create sub releases, they would
> be off the previous release branch, so it would just work naturally.
> >
> > Bosco
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/7/16, 7:12 PM, "Michael Wu" <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds good to me, as long as it benefits the project.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Hao Chen <ha...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Currently we are faced a problem that we can't close the pull request
> from
> >> contributors automatically.
> >>
> >> When a pull request is merged in develop branch, github could not close
> the
> >> pull request automatically and committers don't have permission to close
> >> the pull request manually on github page, so that we have to ask the
> >> contributor to close the branch manually otherwise there would be lots
> of
> >> "OPEN" pull requests listed though most are merged.
> >>
> >> Learning from github service:
> >>
> >> "
> >> To close this pull request, make a commit to your *master/trunk *branch
> >> with (at least) the following in the commit message:
> >>
> >> This closes #305
> >> "
> >>
> >> Commits with *"Closes #PULL-REQUEST-ID"* will only work on
> master/trunk, in
> >> fact *trunk* branch should be our *develo *in purpose and would be
> better
> >> for management.
> >>
> >> Any comments are appreciated.
> >>
> >> - Hao
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [Discuss] How do you think rename "develop" branch to "trunk"branch so that able to close pull request automatically?
Posted by Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>.
+1 moving to “trunk” or “master”.
Regarding the name. These days more projects use the name “master” rather than “trunk”. (At least, that’s my impression. Hive, for instance, used “trunk” when it was primarily svn, and switched to “master” now it’s based on git.) But frankly either would be fine.
Julian
> On Aug 7, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Don Bosco Durai <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I also feel that moving development to “trunk” will be a good thing. Right now, synchronizing the final release branch to the “trunk” seems to be a redundant activity. In the release notes, we can always ask the users to use the release branch and also when we create sub releases, they would be off the previous release branch, so it would just work naturally.
>
> Bosco
>
>
>
> On 8/7/16, 7:12 PM, "Michael Wu" <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sounds good to me, as long as it benefits the project.
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Hao Chen <ha...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Currently we are faced a problem that we can't close the pull request from
>> contributors automatically.
>>
>> When a pull request is merged in develop branch, github could not close the
>> pull request automatically and committers don't have permission to close
>> the pull request manually on github page, so that we have to ask the
>> contributor to close the branch manually otherwise there would be lots of
>> "OPEN" pull requests listed though most are merged.
>>
>> Learning from github service:
>>
>> "
>> To close this pull request, make a commit to your *master/trunk *branch
>> with (at least) the following in the commit message:
>>
>> This closes #305
>> "
>>
>> Commits with *"Closes #PULL-REQUEST-ID"* will only work on master/trunk, in
>> fact *trunk* branch should be our *develo *in purpose and would be better
>> for management.
>>
>> Any comments are appreciated.
>>
>> - Hao
>>
>
>
>