You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Sateesh Chodapuneedi <sa...@citrix.com> on 2013/01/02 10:26:33 UTC
Private development branch
Hi,
I think the current work flow for development (non-committer) fits well for small patch development.
But in case of feature development or bigger patches which might need longer period of development, developer need some place to push the code changes. It's needed to push code changes to secure location rather than depend on commits to local repository (in their development machine).
Would forking ASFCS on any public git host (github.com) sound good? Is that a legitimate idea?
Regards,
Sateesh
RE: Private development branch
Posted by Sateesh Chodapuneedi <sa...@citrix.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
> Sent: 02 January 2013 21:19
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Private development branch
>
> On 01/02/2013 04:25 PM, Pranav Saxena wrote:
> > Wido , you are right .
> >
> > What Sateesh seems to be referring to is to have a safe and secure
> location for a non-committer where he could push his changes while
> working on an "individual" feature. And since a non-committer cannot
> push a feature branch to asf , Sateesh seems to be interested in
> maintaining a public "github" repo which is open source .But the demerit
> is , as you very rightly pointed that it won't be visible to the
> community , unless few users in the community are sincerely interested
> in forking that specific github repo for contributing to the feature
> development , where Sateesh can grant permissions . For a non-committer
> it might seem easy to maintain his code commits like that . But then ,
> when one has to merge it with asf/master , the user has to continuously
> rebase it with asf/master else it t will definitely lead to conflicts.
> >
>
> I did the RBD implementation that way. I kept rebasing my RBD branch
> against master until it was ready for inclusion.
>
> A final rebase and "git format-patch" were enough to get it in the
> master branch
+1. Yes, I second that idea.
>
> > Secondly , merging a public git hub repo without incessant community
> vigilance would lead to issues and arguments later on since a similar
> case was encountered while development of Autoscale feature in the
> recent past .
> >
>
> True, but it somebody is not a committer he/she has to go on to the
> mailinglist and ask for somebody to get it merged in.
>
> You are always welcome to sent status updates to the ml during
> development to keep people posted.
Yes, regular updates to ML helps better insight.
>
> > Otherwise , the trivial way of developing your feature on a private
> repo and then sending small patches for review has been working out well
> in the past.
> >
>
> If you rebase and keep your commits small a merge should indeed be
> easier.
+1. Very true.
>
> I think a lot depends on your GIT workflow and how you (ab)use GIT.
>
> Wido
>
> > Any elegant ideas for a non-committer to contribute and maintain his
> code base ?
> >
> > I know Brian , one of the UI-devs has been maintaining git hub repos
> for his widgets framework .
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pranav
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 8:40 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Private development branch
> >
> > On 01/02/2013 02:32 PM, Likitha Shetty wrote:
> >> Even if a new branch is created won't a contributor's work flow for
> feature development remain the same? Because from what I understand git
> by itself does not allow branch-level access control.
> >>
> >
> > Does that reflect back on the original question? I think Sateesh meant
> that a "secure" location had to be non-local in case of data loss? Or
> did I misunderstood?
> >
> > Anyway, GIT doesn't support branch level access control, but does that
> matter for an Open Source project?
> >
> > Wido
> >
> >> Thank you,
> >> Likitha
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:59 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Private development branch
> >>
> >> On 01/02/2013 10:26 AM, Sateesh Chodapuneedi wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I think the current work flow for development (non-committer) fits
> well for small patch development.
> >>> But in case of feature development or bigger patches which might
> need longer period of development, developer need some place to push the
> code changes. It's needed to push code changes to secure location rather
> than depend on commits to local repository (in their development
> machine).
> >>>
> >>> Would forking ASFCS on any public git host (github.com) sound good?
> Is that a legitimate idea?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why not create a new branch on the ASF repo? This way other
> committers can easily see that a new feature is being worked on.
> >>
> >> That said, you need to have committer rights to do so.
> >>
> >> If you place the code on Github it will not be seen by other
> community members and it could also mislead other users who find the
> code on Github.
> >>
> >> Wido
> >>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Sateesh
> >>>
> >>
> >
Re: Private development branch
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 01/02/2013 04:25 PM, Pranav Saxena wrote:
> Wido , you are right .
>
> What Sateesh seems to be referring to is to have a safe and secure location for a non-committer where he could push his changes while working on an "individual" feature. And since a non-committer cannot push a feature branch to asf , Sateesh seems to be interested in maintaining a public "github" repo which is open source .But the demerit is , as you very rightly pointed that it won't be visible to the community , unless few users in the community are sincerely interested in forking that specific github repo for contributing to the feature development , where Sateesh can grant permissions . For a non-committer it might seem easy to maintain his code commits like that . But then , when one has to merge it with asf/master , the user has to continuously rebase it with asf/master else it t will definitely lead to conflicts.
>
I did the RBD implementation that way. I kept rebasing my RBD branch
against master until it was ready for inclusion.
A final rebase and "git format-patch" were enough to get it in the
master branch.
> Secondly , merging a public git hub repo without incessant community vigilance would lead to issues and arguments later on since a similar case was encountered while development of Autoscale feature in the recent past .
>
True, but it somebody is not a committer he/she has to go on to the
mailinglist and ask for somebody to get it merged in.
You are always welcome to sent status updates to the ml during
development to keep people posted.
> Otherwise , the trivial way of developing your feature on a private repo and then sending small patches for review has been working out well in the past.
>
If you rebase and keep your commits small a merge should indeed be easier.
I think a lot depends on your GIT workflow and how you (ab)use GIT.
Wido
> Any elegant ideas for a non-committer to contribute and maintain his code base ?
>
> I know Brian , one of the UI-devs has been maintaining git hub repos for his widgets framework .
>
> Regards,
> Pranav
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 8:40 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Private development branch
>
> On 01/02/2013 02:32 PM, Likitha Shetty wrote:
>> Even if a new branch is created won't a contributor's work flow for feature development remain the same? Because from what I understand git by itself does not allow branch-level access control.
>>
>
> Does that reflect back on the original question? I think Sateesh meant that a "secure" location had to be non-local in case of data loss? Or did I misunderstood?
>
> Anyway, GIT doesn't support branch level access control, but does that matter for an Open Source project?
>
> Wido
>
>> Thank you,
>> Likitha
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:59 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Private development branch
>>
>> On 01/02/2013 10:26 AM, Sateesh Chodapuneedi wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I think the current work flow for development (non-committer) fits well for small patch development.
>>> But in case of feature development or bigger patches which might need longer period of development, developer need some place to push the code changes. It's needed to push code changes to secure location rather than depend on commits to local repository (in their development machine).
>>>
>>> Would forking ASFCS on any public git host (github.com) sound good? Is that a legitimate idea?
>>>
>>
>> Why not create a new branch on the ASF repo? This way other committers can easily see that a new feature is being worked on.
>>
>> That said, you need to have committer rights to do so.
>>
>> If you place the code on Github it will not be seen by other community members and it could also mislead other users who find the code on Github.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sateesh
>>>
>>
>
RE: Private development branch
Posted by Pranav Saxena <pr...@citrix.com>.
Wido , you are right .
What Sateesh seems to be referring to is to have a safe and secure location for a non-committer where he could push his changes while working on an "individual" feature. And since a non-committer cannot push a feature branch to asf , Sateesh seems to be interested in maintaining a public "github" repo which is open source .But the demerit is , as you very rightly pointed that it won't be visible to the community , unless few users in the community are sincerely interested in forking that specific github repo for contributing to the feature development , where Sateesh can grant permissions . For a non-committer it might seem easy to maintain his code commits like that . But then , when one has to merge it with asf/master , the user has to continuously rebase it with asf/master else it t will definitely lead to conflicts.
Secondly , merging a public git hub repo without incessant community vigilance would lead to issues and arguments later on since a similar case was encountered while development of Autoscale feature in the recent past .
Otherwise , the trivial way of developing your feature on a private repo and then sending small patches for review has been working out well in the past.
Any elegant ideas for a non-committer to contribute and maintain his code base ?
I know Brian , one of the UI-devs has been maintaining git hub repos for his widgets framework .
Regards,
Pranav
-----Original Message-----
From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 8:40 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Private development branch
On 01/02/2013 02:32 PM, Likitha Shetty wrote:
> Even if a new branch is created won't a contributor's work flow for feature development remain the same? Because from what I understand git by itself does not allow branch-level access control.
>
Does that reflect back on the original question? I think Sateesh meant that a "secure" location had to be non-local in case of data loss? Or did I misunderstood?
Anyway, GIT doesn't support branch level access control, but does that matter for an Open Source project?
Wido
> Thank you,
> Likitha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:59 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Private development branch
>
> On 01/02/2013 10:26 AM, Sateesh Chodapuneedi wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I think the current work flow for development (non-committer) fits well for small patch development.
>> But in case of feature development or bigger patches which might need longer period of development, developer need some place to push the code changes. It's needed to push code changes to secure location rather than depend on commits to local repository (in their development machine).
>>
>> Would forking ASFCS on any public git host (github.com) sound good? Is that a legitimate idea?
>>
>
> Why not create a new branch on the ASF repo? This way other committers can easily see that a new feature is being worked on.
>
> That said, you need to have committer rights to do so.
>
> If you place the code on Github it will not be seen by other community members and it could also mislead other users who find the code on Github.
>
> Wido
>
>> Regards,
>> Sateesh
>>
>
Re: Private development branch
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 01/02/2013 02:32 PM, Likitha Shetty wrote:
> Even if a new branch is created won't a contributor's work flow for feature development remain the same? Because from what I understand git by itself does not allow branch-level access control.
>
Does that reflect back on the original question? I think Sateesh meant
that a "secure" location had to be non-local in case of data loss? Or
did I misunderstood?
Anyway, GIT doesn't support branch level access control, but does that
matter for an Open Source project?
Wido
> Thank you,
> Likitha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:59 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Private development branch
>
> On 01/02/2013 10:26 AM, Sateesh Chodapuneedi wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I think the current work flow for development (non-committer) fits well for small patch development.
>> But in case of feature development or bigger patches which might need longer period of development, developer need some place to push the code changes. It's needed to push code changes to secure location rather than depend on commits to local repository (in their development machine).
>>
>> Would forking ASFCS on any public git host (github.com) sound good? Is that a legitimate idea?
>>
>
> Why not create a new branch on the ASF repo? This way other committers can easily see that a new feature is being worked on.
>
> That said, you need to have committer rights to do so.
>
> If you place the code on Github it will not be seen by other community members and it could also mislead other users who find the code on Github.
>
> Wido
>
>> Regards,
>> Sateesh
>>
>
RE: Private development branch
Posted by Likitha Shetty <li...@citrix.com>.
Even if a new branch is created won't a contributor's work flow for feature development remain the same? Because from what I understand git by itself does not allow branch-level access control.
Thank you,
Likitha
-----Original Message-----
From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:59 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Private development branch
On 01/02/2013 10:26 AM, Sateesh Chodapuneedi wrote:
> Hi,
> I think the current work flow for development (non-committer) fits well for small patch development.
> But in case of feature development or bigger patches which might need longer period of development, developer need some place to push the code changes. It's needed to push code changes to secure location rather than depend on commits to local repository (in their development machine).
>
> Would forking ASFCS on any public git host (github.com) sound good? Is that a legitimate idea?
>
Why not create a new branch on the ASF repo? This way other committers can easily see that a new feature is being worked on.
That said, you need to have committer rights to do so.
If you place the code on Github it will not be seen by other community members and it could also mislead other users who find the code on Github.
Wido
> Regards,
> Sateesh
>
Re: Private development branch
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 01/02/2013 10:26 AM, Sateesh Chodapuneedi wrote:
> Hi,
> I think the current work flow for development (non-committer) fits well for small patch development.
> But in case of feature development or bigger patches which might need longer period of development, developer need some place to push the code changes. It's needed to push code changes to secure location rather than depend on commits to local repository (in their development machine).
>
> Would forking ASFCS on any public git host (github.com) sound good? Is that a legitimate idea?
>
Why not create a new branch on the ASF repo? This way other committers
can easily see that a new feature is being worked on.
That said, you need to have committer rights to do so.
If you place the code on Github it will not be seen by other community
members and it could also mislead other users who find the code on Github.
Wido
> Regards,
> Sateesh
>
Re: Private development branch
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Sateesh Chodapuneedi
<sa...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I think the current work flow for development (non-committer) fits well for small patch development.
> But in case of feature development or bigger patches which might need longer period of development, developer need some place to push the code changes. It's needed to push code changes to secure location rather than depend on commits to local repository (in their development machine).
>
> Would forking ASFCS on any public git host (github.com) sound good? Is that a legitimate idea?
>
> Regards,
> Sateesh
This was discussed previously (although in the context of
collaboration between two or more non-committers):
http://markmail.org/message/bo4getn2gvsemrqr
I think it applies.
RE: Private development branch
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@citrix.com>.
There are a lot of forks [1] where people do private or experimental development by creating their remote branches. You can also have private git branch on github or if you setup your own git server on a vps or whatnot.
Regards.
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-cloudstack/network/members
________________________________________
From: David Nalley [david@gnsa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:13 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Private development branch
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Sateesh Chodapuneedi
<sa...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I think the current work flow for development (non-committer) fits well for small patch development.
> But in case of feature development or bigger patches which might need longer period of development, developer need some place to push the code changes. It's needed to push code changes to secure location rather than depend on commits to local repository (in their development machine).
>
> Would forking ASFCS on any public git host (github.com) sound good? Is that a legitimate idea?
>
> Regards,
> Sateesh
While I don't like the term 'private' I think it's fine to use github
or some similar service for this purpose.
If you do use github, forking our github mirror[1] is probably easiest.
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-cloudstack
Re: Private development branch
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Sateesh Chodapuneedi
<sa...@citrix.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I think the current work flow for development (non-committer) fits well for small patch development.
> But in case of feature development or bigger patches which might need longer period of development, developer need some place to push the code changes. It's needed to push code changes to secure location rather than depend on commits to local repository (in their development machine).
>
> Would forking ASFCS on any public git host (github.com) sound good? Is that a legitimate idea?
>
> Regards,
> Sateesh
While I don't like the term 'private' I think it's fine to use github
or some similar service for this purpose.
If you do use github, forking our github mirror[1] is probably easiest.
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-cloudstack