[DISCUSS] git branching model

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
38 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] git branching model

Tony Kurc
All,
I wanted to renew a discussion about our git branching model. We posted a
proposed roadmap a while back [1]. For those familiar, there are some
pretty big features that are going to be awesome, but at the same time, may
make having an overlap of supported major versions likely more desirable
due to the magnitude of changes on the way. It seems as though our current
de facto branching model may make that challenging. My observation is that
although we discussed doing something like gitflow [2], we seem to "just be
really careful around with master around a release" and move on to the next
release (and do some things I think are ugly if we need a quick bugfix
release like 0.4.1).

Some things I think we're happy with now. 'master' being our eternal
branch, and comfortable with feature branches named after their jiras. Its
pretty evident from looking at contributors' forks on github when doing PR
reviews that it is a pretty well understood convention.

I think we can find a way to keep the above going and still support
multiple versions being developed at once.

I have some ideas, but in order to avoid polluting the discussion with what
is in my head, I figured I'd hold off on suggestions and let people mull it
over.

Specific questions:
How do we;
- have a 1.X in development (many months, many features, and we want people
trying early)
- have 0.X continue to live while that is happening for people who need it
for production
- have some features target both 0.X and 1.X
- have relevant bugfixes hit both 0.X and 1.X
- avoid the pain of the 0.4.1 release?

What will master look like while we're doing this?
What will we call our branches?
Who would integrate patches and PRs into multiple versions? Reviewer?
Submitter? Or would this be another ticket?
What project does this well and could be a model?
What questions did I forget to ask?
Should we decide to only have one version "supported" at a time to avoid
this?

1.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201601.mbox/%3CCALJK9a4dMw9PyrrihpPwM7DH3R_4v8b%3Dr--LDhK7y5scob-0og%40mail.gmail.com%3E
2. http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

Thank you for your input

Tony
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Matt Gilman
A couple thoughts...

Push release branches. This would help avoid the confusion we had with the
0.5.0 release. It would be clear that bug fixes being made for the current
release would need to be pushed to both master and the release branch. It
would also allow master to continue receiving commits that will not be
incorporated into the current release. Using branches (in addition to tags)
would make it easier if multiple folks are committing bug fixes as was the
case with 0.5.0. It may even make sense to keep the release branch around
for awhile (maybe X subsequent releases). This would also provide a
convenient place to branch from if we needed a quick bugfix release like we
did in 0.4.1.

Moving forward when we start working some 1.X features I would like to see
essentially two masters (though we can name them whatever we want).
Continue with the same model (RTC) as we do currently but pushing commits
to either the 0.X master, the 1.X master, or both. We would continue to
support both master branches until we've stopped support for the 0.X
baseline whenever we decide that will be.

Matt

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:

> All,
> I wanted to renew a discussion about our git branching model. We posted a
> proposed roadmap a while back [1]. For those familiar, there are some
> pretty big features that are going to be awesome, but at the same time, may
> make having an overlap of supported major versions likely more desirable
> due to the magnitude of changes on the way. It seems as though our current
> de facto branching model may make that challenging. My observation is that
> although we discussed doing something like gitflow [2], we seem to "just be
> really careful around with master around a release" and move on to the next
> release (and do some things I think are ugly if we need a quick bugfix
> release like 0.4.1).
>
> Some things I think we're happy with now. 'master' being our eternal
> branch, and comfortable with feature branches named after their jiras. Its
> pretty evident from looking at contributors' forks on github when doing PR
> reviews that it is a pretty well understood convention.
>
> I think we can find a way to keep the above going and still support
> multiple versions being developed at once.
>
> I have some ideas, but in order to avoid polluting the discussion with what
> is in my head, I figured I'd hold off on suggestions and let people mull it
> over.
>
> Specific questions:
> How do we;
> - have a 1.X in development (many months, many features, and we want people
> trying early)
> - have 0.X continue to live while that is happening for people who need it
> for production
> - have some features target both 0.X and 1.X
> - have relevant bugfixes hit both 0.X and 1.X
> - avoid the pain of the 0.4.1 release?
>
> What will master look like while we're doing this?
> What will we call our branches?
> Who would integrate patches and PRs into multiple versions? Reviewer?
> Submitter? Or would this be another ticket?
> What project does this well and could be a model?
> What questions did I forget to ask?
> Should we decide to only have one version "supported" at a time to avoid
> this?
>
> 1.
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201601.mbox/%3CCALJK9a4dMw9PyrrihpPwM7DH3R_4v8b%3Dr--LDhK7y5scob-0og%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> 2. http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>
> Thank you for your input
>
> Tony
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Joe Witt
I still am no Git wizard so happy to be largely in listen mode on this
topic.  My 'assumption' of what we'd do here is basically as Matt
mentions.


On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A couple thoughts...
>
> Push release branches. This would help avoid the confusion we had with the
> 0.5.0 release. It would be clear that bug fixes being made for the current
> release would need to be pushed to both master and the release branch. It
> would also allow master to continue receiving commits that will not be
> incorporated into the current release. Using branches (in addition to tags)
> would make it easier if multiple folks are committing bug fixes as was the
> case with 0.5.0. It may even make sense to keep the release branch around
> for awhile (maybe X subsequent releases). This would also provide a
> convenient place to branch from if we needed a quick bugfix release like we
> did in 0.4.1.
>
> Moving forward when we start working some 1.X features I would like to see
> essentially two masters (though we can name them whatever we want).
> Continue with the same model (RTC) as we do currently but pushing commits
> to either the 0.X master, the 1.X master, or both. We would continue to
> support both master branches until we've stopped support for the 0.X
> baseline whenever we decide that will be.
>
> Matt
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> All,
>> I wanted to renew a discussion about our git branching model. We posted a
>> proposed roadmap a while back [1]. For those familiar, there are some
>> pretty big features that are going to be awesome, but at the same time, may
>> make having an overlap of supported major versions likely more desirable
>> due to the magnitude of changes on the way. It seems as though our current
>> de facto branching model may make that challenging. My observation is that
>> although we discussed doing something like gitflow [2], we seem to "just be
>> really careful around with master around a release" and move on to the next
>> release (and do some things I think are ugly if we need a quick bugfix
>> release like 0.4.1).
>>
>> Some things I think we're happy with now. 'master' being our eternal
>> branch, and comfortable with feature branches named after their jiras. Its
>> pretty evident from looking at contributors' forks on github when doing PR
>> reviews that it is a pretty well understood convention.
>>
>> I think we can find a way to keep the above going and still support
>> multiple versions being developed at once.
>>
>> I have some ideas, but in order to avoid polluting the discussion with what
>> is in my head, I figured I'd hold off on suggestions and let people mull it
>> over.
>>
>> Specific questions:
>> How do we;
>> - have a 1.X in development (many months, many features, and we want people
>> trying early)
>> - have 0.X continue to live while that is happening for people who need it
>> for production
>> - have some features target both 0.X and 1.X
>> - have relevant bugfixes hit both 0.X and 1.X
>> - avoid the pain of the 0.4.1 release?
>>
>> What will master look like while we're doing this?
>> What will we call our branches?
>> Who would integrate patches and PRs into multiple versions? Reviewer?
>> Submitter? Or would this be another ticket?
>> What project does this well and could be a model?
>> What questions did I forget to ask?
>> Should we decide to only have one version "supported" at a time to avoid
>> this?
>>
>> 1.
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201601.mbox/%3CCALJK9a4dMw9PyrrihpPwM7DH3R_4v8b%3Dr--LDhK7y5scob-0og%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> 2. http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>>
>> Thank you for your input
>>
>> Tony
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Andre
In reply to this post by Matt Gilman
I am not a git specialist but I can share my view as a user:

** What will master look like while we're doing this?*
I've noticed depending on the project a master branch can be a stable
branch or a development branch and as long the behaviour of the branches is
clearly documented, the approach used is secondary. (except on golang
project where rules apply).

** What will we call our branches?*

-> development (current the master)
-> v0.x-stable
-> v1.x-stable
-> v2.x-stable (v0.x-stable is deleted)
-> v3.x-stable (v1.x-stable is deleted)

Each branch would have multiple tags marking the minor releases.

Ditching master as a name will clearly state the intent of the branch and
allow the user / developer to know that by running on that version you are
from cutting edge.

Having said that I suspect there are some minor issues about getting a git
without master to run on github [1]but given the project uses the ASF bot
and github replication it may worth checking if this is possible.

Independently of the name master would be cutting edge and things could
break.

** Who would integrate patches and PRs into multiple versions?
Reviewer? Submitter? Or would this be another ticket?*

If it is a new feature (e.g. new listener) it should be up to the submitter
to decide if support would be extended to currently stable release or would
reside just on the development branch.

The key IMHO aren't the features but changes to shared code; as long we
prevent changes to existing classes and method signatures I think we would
be following the right track.

It should be paramount to provide stability to code crafted outside the
project (a perfect example being NATS messaging processor that was never
merged into the project [2]) without hindering development of the product
within minor releases.

Regarding bug fixes, I think anyone would be welcome to submit a fix to any
of the supported branches.

** What project does this well and could be a model?*

I think a good model to look at is the one adopted by rsyslog project.

If I'm not mistaken they adopt a release branch model.

v7.x is no longer improved but still available for bug fix backport into
minor releases (controlled via tags).
v8.x stable is there and has tags for each of the minor releases.
master is the development tree

** Should we decide to only have one version "supported" at a time to
avoid this?*

I reckon that nowadays the minimum expected by user base is major - 1 as
this prevents the requirement to adopt rolling releases.

Also, by supported I mean security fixes and critical issues that may lead
to data loss and system crashes. features, nice to haves and other things
are up to a number of factors and I may or may not get them backported.

Those who have ever dealt with RHEL know that you may ask RH to backport
feature blah to "version - 1"... you may ask, but truth is that sometimes
you will get it, sometimes you won't.

Cheers


[1] https://matthew-brett.github.io/pydagogue/gh_delete_master.html
[2] https://github.com/mring33621/nats-messaging-for-nifi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Joe Skora
+1 for a branching model with master as current dev, release branches for
release development and fixes, and tags for marking release points.
>
> ** What will we call our branches?*
> -> development (current the master)
> -> v0.x-stable
> -> v1.x-stable
> -> v2.x-stable (v0.x-stable is deleted)
> -> v3.x-stable (v1.x-stable is deleted)
> Each branch would have multiple tags marking the minor releases.


In general I don't care what the dev branch is called, but in my
experience, Git-life is easier when master is the branch where development
occurs.

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Andre <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am not a git specialist but I can share my view as a user:
>
> ** What will master look like while we're doing this?*
> I've noticed depending on the project a master branch can be a stable
> branch or a development branch and as long the behaviour of the branches is
> clearly documented, the approach used is secondary. (except on golang
> project where rules apply).
>
> ** What will we call our branches?*
>
> -> development (current the master)
> -> v0.x-stable
> -> v1.x-stable
> -> v2.x-stable (v0.x-stable is deleted)
> -> v3.x-stable (v1.x-stable is deleted)
>
> Each branch would have multiple tags marking the minor releases.
>
> Ditching master as a name will clearly state the intent of the branch and
> allow the user / developer to know that by running on that version you are
> from cutting edge.
>
> Having said that I suspect there are some minor issues about getting a git
> without master to run on github [1]but given the project uses the ASF bot
> and github replication it may worth checking if this is possible.
>
> Independently of the name master would be cutting edge and things could
> break.
>
> ** Who would integrate patches and PRs into multiple versions?
> Reviewer? Submitter? Or would this be another ticket?*
>
> If it is a new feature (e.g. new listener) it should be up to the submitter
> to decide if support would be extended to currently stable release or would
> reside just on the development branch.
>
> The key IMHO aren't the features but changes to shared code; as long we
> prevent changes to existing classes and method signatures I think we would
> be following the right track.
>
> It should be paramount to provide stability to code crafted outside the
> project (a perfect example being NATS messaging processor that was never
> merged into the project [2]) without hindering development of the product
> within minor releases.
>
> Regarding bug fixes, I think anyone would be welcome to submit a fix to any
> of the supported branches.
>
> ** What project does this well and could be a model?*
>
> I think a good model to look at is the one adopted by rsyslog project.
>
> If I'm not mistaken they adopt a release branch model.
>
> v7.x is no longer improved but still available for bug fix backport into
> minor releases (controlled via tags).
> v8.x stable is there and has tags for each of the minor releases.
> master is the development tree
>
> ** Should we decide to only have one version "supported" at a time to
> avoid this?*
>
> I reckon that nowadays the minimum expected by user base is major - 1 as
> this prevents the requirement to adopt rolling releases.
>
> Also, by supported I mean security fixes and critical issues that may lead
> to data loss and system crashes. features, nice to haves and other things
> are up to a number of factors and I may or may not get them backported.
>
> Those who have ever dealt with RHEL know that you may ask RH to backport
> feature blah to "version - 1"... you may ask, but truth is that sometimes
> you will get it, sometimes you won't.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> [1] https://matthew-brett.github.io/pydagogue/gh_delete_master.html
> [2] https://github.com/mring33621/nats-messaging-for-nifi
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Matt Burgess
The release branch approach (at least happy path) is IMHO the way to go. I’d just like to address from personal experience those times when commits don’t cherry-pick over. Do we put the onus on the developer to push PRs for the intended branches? In either case I would think the original patch/PR would go against master, then whomever is tasked with getting it back to the appropriate branches needs to do the cherry-pick (or whatever is the prudent way to apply the change) and get it into “past” branches. At my last place, the onus was on the developer to introduce the PR for master and a PR for every previous branch he/she would like to get the fix/feature into, and approval was given based on branch and community approval. Working backwards in time like this reduces regressions and forces a per-PR look at the commit in the appropriate context.

Regards,
Matt



On 2/13/16, 9:26 PM, "Joe Skora" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>+1 for a branching model with master as current dev, release branches for
>release development and fixes, and tags for marking release points.
>>
>> ** What will we call our branches?*
>> -> development (current the master)
>> -> v0.x-stable
>> -> v1.x-stable
>> -> v2.x-stable (v0.x-stable is deleted)
>> -> v3.x-stable (v1.x-stable is deleted)
>> Each branch would have multiple tags marking the minor releases.
>
>
>In general I don't care what the dev branch is called, but in my
>experience, Git-life is easier when master is the branch where development
>occurs.
>
>On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Andre <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I am not a git specialist but I can share my view as a user:
>>
>> ** What will master look like while we're doing this?*
>> I've noticed depending on the project a master branch can be a stable
>> branch or a development branch and as long the behaviour of the branches is
>> clearly documented, the approach used is secondary. (except on golang
>> project where rules apply).
>>
>> ** What will we call our branches?*
>>
>> -> development (current the master)
>> -> v0.x-stable
>> -> v1.x-stable
>> -> v2.x-stable (v0.x-stable is deleted)
>> -> v3.x-stable (v1.x-stable is deleted)
>>
>> Each branch would have multiple tags marking the minor releases.
>>
>> Ditching master as a name will clearly state the intent of the branch and
>> allow the user / developer to know that by running on that version you are
>> from cutting edge.
>>
>> Having said that I suspect there are some minor issues about getting a git
>> without master to run on github [1]but given the project uses the ASF bot
>> and github replication it may worth checking if this is possible.
>>
>> Independently of the name master would be cutting edge and things could
>> break.
>>
>> ** Who would integrate patches and PRs into multiple versions?
>> Reviewer? Submitter? Or would this be another ticket?*
>>
>> If it is a new feature (e.g. new listener) it should be up to the submitter
>> to decide if support would be extended to currently stable release or would
>> reside just on the development branch.
>>
>> The key IMHO aren't the features but changes to shared code; as long we
>> prevent changes to existing classes and method signatures I think we would
>> be following the right track.
>>
>> It should be paramount to provide stability to code crafted outside the
>> project (a perfect example being NATS messaging processor that was never
>> merged into the project [2]) without hindering development of the product
>> within minor releases.
>>
>> Regarding bug fixes, I think anyone would be welcome to submit a fix to any
>> of the supported branches.
>>
>> ** What project does this well and could be a model?*
>>
>> I think a good model to look at is the one adopted by rsyslog project.
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken they adopt a release branch model.
>>
>> v7.x is no longer improved but still available for bug fix backport into
>> minor releases (controlled via tags).
>> v8.x stable is there and has tags for each of the minor releases.
>> master is the development tree
>>
>> ** Should we decide to only have one version "supported" at a time to
>> avoid this?*
>>
>> I reckon that nowadays the minimum expected by user base is major - 1 as
>> this prevents the requirement to adopt rolling releases.
>>
>> Also, by supported I mean security fixes and critical issues that may lead
>> to data loss and system crashes. features, nice to haves and other things
>> are up to a number of factors and I may or may not get them backported.
>>
>> Those who have ever dealt with RHEL know that you may ask RH to backport
>> feature blah to "version - 1"... you may ask, but truth is that sometimes
>> you will get it, sometimes you won't.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> [1] https://matthew-brett.github.io/pydagogue/gh_delete_master.html
>> [2] https://github.com/mring33621/nats-messaging-for-nifi
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

trkurc
Administrator
In reply to this post by Matt Gilman
Mat, I'm not entirely sure that a release branch would have helped. As I
mentioned, we sort of used master as the release branch. I just built off
of the wrong commit, which could happen even with a release branch. That
being said, I think it is a good idea (I think it would have helped with
the 0.4.1 release).

I definitely believe we need to have the intended commit to start a release
from as part of the verification. I used some bash with environment
variables as input for doing the RC (for the RC number, the release ticket,
and nifi version). The branch point for the RC would be a delightful one of
those variables


On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Matt Gilman <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> A couple thoughts...
>
> Push release branches. This would help avoid the confusion we had with the
> 0.5.0 release. It would be clear that bug fixes being made for the current
> release would need to be pushed to both master and the release branch. It
> would also allow master to continue receiving commits that will not be
> incorporated into the current release. Using branches (in addition to tags)
> would make it easier if multiple folks are committing bug fixes as was the
> case with 0.5.0. It may even make sense to keep the release branch around
> for awhile (maybe X subsequent releases). This would also provide a
> convenient place to branch from if we needed a quick bugfix release like we
> did in 0.4.1.
>
> Moving forward when we start working some 1.X features I would like to see
> essentially two masters (though we can name them whatever we want).
> Continue with the same model (RTC) as we do currently but pushing commits
> to either the 0.X master, the 1.X master, or both. We would continue to
> support both master branches until we've stopped support for the 0.X
> baseline whenever we decide that will be.
>
> Matt
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > All,
> > I wanted to renew a discussion about our git branching model. We posted a
> > proposed roadmap a while back [1]. For those familiar, there are some
> > pretty big features that are going to be awesome, but at the same time,
> may
> > make having an overlap of supported major versions likely more desirable
> > due to the magnitude of changes on the way. It seems as though our
> current
> > de facto branching model may make that challenging. My observation is
> that
> > although we discussed doing something like gitflow [2], we seem to "just
> be
> > really careful around with master around a release" and move on to the
> next
> > release (and do some things I think are ugly if we need a quick bugfix
> > release like 0.4.1).
> >
> > Some things I think we're happy with now. 'master' being our eternal
> > branch, and comfortable with feature branches named after their jiras.
> Its
> > pretty evident from looking at contributors' forks on github when doing
> PR
> > reviews that it is a pretty well understood convention.
> >
> > I think we can find a way to keep the above going and still support
> > multiple versions being developed at once.
> >
> > I have some ideas, but in order to avoid polluting the discussion with
> what
> > is in my head, I figured I'd hold off on suggestions and let people mull
> it
> > over.
> >
> > Specific questions:
> > How do we;
> > - have a 1.X in development (many months, many features, and we want
> people
> > trying early)
> > - have 0.X continue to live while that is happening for people who need
> it
> > for production
> > - have some features target both 0.X and 1.X
> > - have relevant bugfixes hit both 0.X and 1.X
> > - avoid the pain of the 0.4.1 release?
> >
> > What will master look like while we're doing this?
> > What will we call our branches?
> > Who would integrate patches and PRs into multiple versions? Reviewer?
> > Submitter? Or would this be another ticket?
> > What project does this well and could be a model?
> > What questions did I forget to ask?
> > Should we decide to only have one version "supported" at a time to avoid
> > this?
> >
> > 1.
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201601.mbox/%3CCALJK9a4dMw9PyrrihpPwM7DH3R_4v8b%3Dr--LDhK7y5scob-0og%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> > 2. http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
> >
> > Thank you for your input
> >
> > Tony
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Thad Guidry
Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master become primary
development of next release (with feature branches off of it).. while you
continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches off of
them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad practice ! )

Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to
understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its really
that easy.

http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/

Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools like
Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either built in or
plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command line, then that
is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.

Thad
+ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Adam Taft
One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in combination with
maven.  It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking closely with the
maven pom.xml version.  gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the pom version
updated with the git release names.

Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags synchronized
with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be approached
with tools that are available through maven rather than from git.  The
git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal with this
synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool.

I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1] plugin, which
does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a maven project.
I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that the master
branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the strict
gitflow workflow).  I just mention this, in reference to how some plugins
are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue.

[1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/


On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master become primary
> development of next release (with feature branches off of it).. while you
> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches off of
> them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad practice ! )
>
> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to
> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its really
> that easy.
>
> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
>
> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools like
> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either built in or
> plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command line, then that
> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.
>
> Thad
> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Benson Margulies
I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It worked great, until it
didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, merge problems. No
one seemed to be maintaining it.

There's a new offering in this dept:
https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft <[hidden email]> wrote:

> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in combination with
> maven.  It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking closely with the
> maven pom.xml version.  gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the pom version
> updated with the git release names.
>
> Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags synchronized
> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be approached
> with tools that are available through maven rather than from git.  The
> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal with this
> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool.
>
> I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1] plugin, which
> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a maven project.
> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that the master
> branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the strict
> gitflow workflow).  I just mention this, in reference to how some plugins
> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue.
>
> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master become primary
>> development of next release (with feature branches off of it).. while you
>> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches off of
>> them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad practice ! )
>>
>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to
>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its really
>> that easy.
>>
>> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
>>
>> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools like
>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either built in or
>> plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command line, then that
>> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.
>>
>> Thad
>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Benson Margulies
The issue tracker
https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/projects/MJF/issues/MJF-259?filter=allopenissues
might also prove useful in evaluating it.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Benson Margulies
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It worked great, until it
> didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, merge problems. No
> one seemed to be maintaining it.
>
> There's a new offering in this dept:
> https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin.
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in combination with
>> maven.  It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking closely with the
>> maven pom.xml version.  gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the pom version
>> updated with the git release names.
>>
>> Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags synchronized
>> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be approached
>> with tools that are available through maven rather than from git.  The
>> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal with this
>> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool.
>>
>> I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1] plugin, which
>> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a maven project.
>> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that the master
>> branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the strict
>> gitflow workflow).  I just mention this, in reference to how some plugins
>> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue.
>>
>> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master become primary
>>> development of next release (with feature branches off of it).. while you
>>> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches off of
>>> them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad practice ! )
>>>
>>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to
>>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its really
>>> that easy.
>>>
>>> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
>>>
>>> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools like
>>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either built in or
>>> plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command line, then that
>>> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.
>>>
>>> Thad
>>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

trkurc
Administrator
While I like gitflow, I can't say I like any of the plugins that are used.
I have worked on some other projects (unfortunately not open source) that
use a gitflow inspired workflow, without ever using a plugin. Nice side
effect is that I believe this got me better at using git, and generally we
all got better at managing merge pain.

On merge problems, I think the reason we're operating the way we are now is
to avoid merge mayhem. I think the initial bar for a patch is "can be
merged into master", and we have our friend Travis to make this even easier
to know upfront. This greatly simplifies things. If a bugfix is "patch
needs to be able to apply onto the current release in progress, master, and
several other versions we're supporting, with possibly drastically
different code", well then things get interesting.



On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The issue tracker
>
> https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/projects/MJF/issues/MJF-259?filter=allopenissues
> might also prove useful in evaluating it.
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Benson Margulies
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It worked great, until it
> > didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, merge problems. No
> > one seemed to be maintaining it.
> >
> > There's a new offering in this dept:
> > https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in combination with
> >> maven.  It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking closely with
> the
> >> maven pom.xml version.  gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the pom
> version
> >> updated with the git release names.
> >>
> >> Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags
> synchronized
> >> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be approached
> >> with tools that are available through maven rather than from git.  The
> >> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal with
> this
> >> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool.
> >>
> >> I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1] plugin, which
> >> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a maven
> project.
> >> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that the
> master
> >> branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the strict
> >> gitflow workflow).  I just mention this, in reference to how some
> plugins
> >> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue.
> >>
> >> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master become
> primary
> >>> development of next release (with feature branches off of it).. while
> you
> >>> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches off of
> >>> them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad practice ! )
> >>>
> >>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to
> >>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its really
> >>> that easy.
> >>>
> >>> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
> >>>
> >>> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools like
> >>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either built
> in or
> >>> plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command line, then
> that
> >>> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.
> >>>
> >>> Thad
> >>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
> >>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Joe Witt
I don't want to kill this thread.  It is good to discuss specific
tooling/procedures.  But I do want to get some consensus discussion
around Tony's original intent (as I read it).  So kicked off a
discussion back at that level.



On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:

> While I like gitflow, I can't say I like any of the plugins that are used.
> I have worked on some other projects (unfortunately not open source) that
> use a gitflow inspired workflow, without ever using a plugin. Nice side
> effect is that I believe this got me better at using git, and generally we
> all got better at managing merge pain.
>
> On merge problems, I think the reason we're operating the way we are now is
> to avoid merge mayhem. I think the initial bar for a patch is "can be
> merged into master", and we have our friend Travis to make this even easier
> to know upfront. This greatly simplifies things. If a bugfix is "patch
> needs to be able to apply onto the current release in progress, master, and
> several other versions we're supporting, with possibly drastically
> different code", well then things get interesting.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> The issue tracker
>>
>> https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/projects/MJF/issues/MJF-259?filter=allopenissues
>> might also prove useful in evaluating it.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Benson Margulies
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It worked great, until it
>> > didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, merge problems. No
>> > one seemed to be maintaining it.
>> >
>> > There's a new offering in this dept:
>> > https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in combination with
>> >> maven.  It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking closely with
>> the
>> >> maven pom.xml version.  gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the pom
>> version
>> >> updated with the git release names.
>> >>
>> >> Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags
>> synchronized
>> >> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be approached
>> >> with tools that are available through maven rather than from git.  The
>> >> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal with
>> this
>> >> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool.
>> >>
>> >> I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1] plugin, which
>> >> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a maven
>> project.
>> >> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that the
>> master
>> >> branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the strict
>> >> gitflow workflow).  I just mention this, in reference to how some
>> plugins
>> >> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue.
>> >>
>> >> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master become
>> primary
>> >>> development of next release (with feature branches off of it).. while
>> you
>> >>> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches off of
>> >>> them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad practice ! )
>> >>>
>> >>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to
>> >>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its really
>> >>> that easy.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
>> >>>
>> >>> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools like
>> >>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either built
>> in or
>> >>> plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command line, then
>> that
>> >>> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thad
>> >>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>> >>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Joe Witt
Given the discussion has stalled i'd like to turn it more toward a
proposal as we're at a point now where we need to start executing some
of these approaches.  We're actually already seeing it take form in
the support/0.5.x branch and the master branch (which is for 0.6.0 at
this point).

The proposal then for Git processes based on the other thread [1]
where we outline a support model:

- We will have a branch for each major release line

- The branch designated 'master' will be for the latest major release
line under active development

- Commits against master should be evaluated for whether they should
be cherry-picked to other still supported major release lines
consistent with the community support model

- When a release occurs a signed tag will be generated and the version
for that major line will be bumped to the next incremental release
snapshot

- The next commit on a given major release line that requires a minor
version change should increment the minor version number and reset
incremental to zero

- Major version changes should only ever be prompted from the master
branch and should only occur when a commit warrants changing the major
version at which point a major release line branch should be created
off of master for the previous major release line

[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCALJK9a7bWjff7xXGmUtp3nFV3HRmqbLL1StwkXcf5JdohNPRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E

Thanks
Joe

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't want to kill this thread.  It is good to discuss specific
> tooling/procedures.  But I do want to get some consensus discussion
> around Tony's original intent (as I read it).  So kicked off a
> discussion back at that level.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> While I like gitflow, I can't say I like any of the plugins that are used.
>> I have worked on some other projects (unfortunately not open source) that
>> use a gitflow inspired workflow, without ever using a plugin. Nice side
>> effect is that I believe this got me better at using git, and generally we
>> all got better at managing merge pain.
>>
>> On merge problems, I think the reason we're operating the way we are now is
>> to avoid merge mayhem. I think the initial bar for a patch is "can be
>> merged into master", and we have our friend Travis to make this even easier
>> to know upfront. This greatly simplifies things. If a bugfix is "patch
>> needs to be able to apply onto the current release in progress, master, and
>> several other versions we're supporting, with possibly drastically
>> different code", well then things get interesting.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The issue tracker
>>>
>>> https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/projects/MJF/issues/MJF-259?filter=allopenissues
>>> might also prove useful in evaluating it.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Benson Margulies
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It worked great, until it
>>> > didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, merge problems. No
>>> > one seemed to be maintaining it.
>>> >
>>> > There's a new offering in this dept:
>>> > https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin.
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in combination with
>>> >> maven.  It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking closely with
>>> the
>>> >> maven pom.xml version.  gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the pom
>>> version
>>> >> updated with the git release names.
>>> >>
>>> >> Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags
>>> synchronized
>>> >> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be approached
>>> >> with tools that are available through maven rather than from git.  The
>>> >> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal with
>>> this
>>> >> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool.
>>> >>
>>> >> I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1] plugin, which
>>> >> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a maven
>>> project.
>>> >> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that the
>>> master
>>> >> branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the strict
>>> >> gitflow workflow).  I just mention this, in reference to how some
>>> plugins
>>> >> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue.
>>> >>
>>> >> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master become
>>> primary
>>> >>> development of next release (with feature branches off of it).. while
>>> you
>>> >>> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches off of
>>> >>> them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad practice ! )
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to
>>> >>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its really
>>> >>> that easy.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools like
>>> >>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either built
>>> in or
>>> >>> plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command line, then
>>> that
>>> >>> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thad
>>> >>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>>> >>>
>>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

James Wing
I have some rhetorical questions for discussion of the branching model:

1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor release,
currently 0.6.0, by default?

2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there restrictions
before or after releases?

3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?

4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?

5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be
backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all minor
releases in the 0.x line?




On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Given the discussion has stalled i'd like to turn it more toward a
> proposal as we're at a point now where we need to start executing some
> of these approaches.  We're actually already seeing it take form in
> the support/0.5.x branch and the master branch (which is for 0.6.0 at
> this point).
>
> The proposal then for Git processes based on the other thread [1]
> where we outline a support model:
>
> - We will have a branch for each major release line
>
> - The branch designated 'master' will be for the latest major release
> line under active development
>
> - Commits against master should be evaluated for whether they should
> be cherry-picked to other still supported major release lines
> consistent with the community support model
>
> - When a release occurs a signed tag will be generated and the version
> for that major line will be bumped to the next incremental release
> snapshot
>
> - The next commit on a given major release line that requires a minor
> version change should increment the minor version number and reset
> incremental to zero
>
> - Major version changes should only ever be prompted from the master
> branch and should only occur when a commit warrants changing the major
> version at which point a major release line branch should be created
> off of master for the previous major release line
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCALJK9a7bWjff7xXGmUtp3nFV3HRmqbLL1StwkXcf5JdohNPRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I don't want to kill this thread.  It is good to discuss specific
> > tooling/procedures.  But I do want to get some consensus discussion
> > around Tony's original intent (as I read it).  So kicked off a
> > discussion back at that level.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> While I like gitflow, I can't say I like any of the plugins that are
> used.
> >> I have worked on some other projects (unfortunately not open source)
> that
> >> use a gitflow inspired workflow, without ever using a plugin. Nice side
> >> effect is that I believe this got me better at using git, and generally
> we
> >> all got better at managing merge pain.
> >>
> >> On merge problems, I think the reason we're operating the way we are
> now is
> >> to avoid merge mayhem. I think the initial bar for a patch is "can be
> >> merged into master", and we have our friend Travis to make this even
> easier
> >> to know upfront. This greatly simplifies things. If a bugfix is "patch
> >> needs to be able to apply onto the current release in progress, master,
> and
> >> several other versions we're supporting, with possibly drastically
> >> different code", well then things get interesting.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Benson Margulies <
> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The issue tracker
> >>>
> >>>
> https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/projects/MJF/issues/MJF-259?filter=allopenissues
> >>> might also prove useful in evaluating it.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Benson Margulies
> >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> > I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It worked great, until
> it
> >>> > didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, merge problems. No
> >>> > one seemed to be maintaining it.
> >>> >
> >>> > There's a new offering in this dept:
> >>> > https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin.
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>> >> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in combination
> with
> >>> >> maven.  It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking closely
> with
> >>> the
> >>> >> maven pom.xml version.  gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the pom
> >>> version
> >>> >> updated with the git release names.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags
> >>> synchronized
> >>> >> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be
> approached
> >>> >> with tools that are available through maven rather than from git.
> The
> >>> >> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal with
> >>> this
> >>> >> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1] plugin,
> which
> >>> >> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a maven
> >>> project.
> >>> >> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that the
> >>> master
> >>> >> branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the
> strict
> >>> >> gitflow workflow).  I just mention this, in reference to how some
> >>> plugins
> >>> >> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <[hidden email]
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master become
> >>> primary
> >>> >>> development of next release (with feature branches off of it)..
> while
> >>> you
> >>> >>> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches
> off of
> >>> >>> them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad practice !
> )
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to
> >>> >>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its
> really
> >>> >>> that easy.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools
> like
> >>> >>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either
> built
> >>> in or
> >>> >>> plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command line,
> then
> >>> that
> >>> >>> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Thad
> >>> >>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
> >>> >>>
> >>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Joe Witt
James,

These are great questions to frame and test the model. So let's
attempt to address them agains the model.

Here is the language for that model at this time:

- We support the newest major release line (0.x, 1.x) and any previous
major release lines up to one year since the last minor release
(0.4.y, 1.5.y) in that line

- When master has no releases we will backport any appropriate changes
(fix, feature, enhancement) to the previous major release line

- Any security or data loss related fixes should be back ported to all
supported major release lines

- Fixes, improvements, features will be applied to the next release
(minor or incremental) within a given major release line and will only
be back ported on a case by case basis for fixes

- In order to consider a patch for back porting to a previous minor
release line a request needs to be made to the developer or user
mailing list with a successful discussion and a release candidate
produced'

So with those above let's review 1 through 5 in turn.

1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor
release, currently 0.6.0, by default?

  Master is for whatever is the most leading edge release line working
toward the next release.  At the time that a minor release occurs
against that release line then it branches off into a support/x.y.*
branch for any further efforts against it.

2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there restrictions
before or after releases?

  I believe master would be always open for new code.  From some point
at which a release is considered feature complete then further feature
enhancements need to go on master as part of the next release effort.

3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?

  The most recent minor release line of a major line will be supported
for up to one year from whenever it was released where support is for
bug fixes for security or data loss related items.  Releases for older
minor lines should be considered on a case by case basis and if
requested.  Otherwise the basic premise is the train is moving
forward.

4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?

  It must be visible.  It should be placed into a branch until such
time that it is ready to become the new master.  That time would be
when the next release will be for that line.  When I think about this
against the stated model we could probably tweak the wording to better
articulate that.  I think it was what was meant with 'when master has
no releases we will backport...' but that is unclear.

5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be
backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all minor
releases in the 0.x line?

  Only to the most recent minor release of any still supported major
line.  However, the catch of 'case by case' determination for older
minor lines is still in play.  Basically if someone requests it and
can get enough momentum for it then it should be no problem to produce
such a release.

Thanks
Joe

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:15 PM, James Wing <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have some rhetorical questions for discussion of the branching model:
>
> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor release,
> currently 0.6.0, by default?
>
> 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there restrictions
> before or after releases?
>
> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?
>
> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
> release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?
>
> 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be
> backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all minor
> releases in the 0.x line?
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Given the discussion has stalled i'd like to turn it more toward a
>> proposal as we're at a point now where we need to start executing some
>> of these approaches.  We're actually already seeing it take form in
>> the support/0.5.x branch and the master branch (which is for 0.6.0 at
>> this point).
>>
>> The proposal then for Git processes based on the other thread [1]
>> where we outline a support model:
>>
>> - We will have a branch for each major release line
>>
>> - The branch designated 'master' will be for the latest major release
>> line under active development
>>
>> - Commits against master should be evaluated for whether they should
>> be cherry-picked to other still supported major release lines
>> consistent with the community support model
>>
>> - When a release occurs a signed tag will be generated and the version
>> for that major line will be bumped to the next incremental release
>> snapshot
>>
>> - The next commit on a given major release line that requires a minor
>> version change should increment the minor version number and reset
>> incremental to zero
>>
>> - Major version changes should only ever be prompted from the master
>> branch and should only occur when a commit warrants changing the major
>> version at which point a major release line branch should be created
>> off of master for the previous major release line
>>
>> [1]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCALJK9a7bWjff7xXGmUtp3nFV3HRmqbLL1StwkXcf5JdohNPRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > I don't want to kill this thread.  It is good to discuss specific
>> > tooling/procedures.  But I do want to get some consensus discussion
>> > around Tony's original intent (as I read it).  So kicked off a
>> > discussion back at that level.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> While I like gitflow, I can't say I like any of the plugins that are
>> used.
>> >> I have worked on some other projects (unfortunately not open source)
>> that
>> >> use a gitflow inspired workflow, without ever using a plugin. Nice side
>> >> effect is that I believe this got me better at using git, and generally
>> we
>> >> all got better at managing merge pain.
>> >>
>> >> On merge problems, I think the reason we're operating the way we are
>> now is
>> >> to avoid merge mayhem. I think the initial bar for a patch is "can be
>> >> merged into master", and we have our friend Travis to make this even
>> easier
>> >> to know upfront. This greatly simplifies things. If a bugfix is "patch
>> >> needs to be able to apply onto the current release in progress, master,
>> and
>> >> several other versions we're supporting, with possibly drastically
>> >> different code", well then things get interesting.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Benson Margulies <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> The issue tracker
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/projects/MJF/issues/MJF-259?filter=allopenissues
>> >>> might also prove useful in evaluating it.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Benson Margulies
>> >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>> > I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It worked great, until
>> it
>> >>> > didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, merge problems. No
>> >>> > one seemed to be maintaining it.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > There's a new offering in this dept:
>> >>> > https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >>> >> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in combination
>> with
>> >>> >> maven.  It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking closely
>> with
>> >>> the
>> >>> >> maven pom.xml version.  gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the pom
>> >>> version
>> >>> >> updated with the git release names.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags
>> >>> synchronized
>> >>> >> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be
>> approached
>> >>> >> with tools that are available through maven rather than from git.
>> The
>> >>> >> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal with
>> >>> this
>> >>> >> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1] plugin,
>> which
>> >>> >> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a maven
>> >>> project.
>> >>> >> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that the
>> >>> master
>> >>> >> branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the
>> strict
>> >>> >> gitflow workflow).  I just mention this, in reference to how some
>> >>> plugins
>> >>> >> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <[hidden email]
>> >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master become
>> >>> primary
>> >>> >>> development of next release (with feature branches off of it)..
>> while
>> >>> you
>> >>> >>> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches
>> off of
>> >>> >>> them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad practice !
>> )
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to
>> >>> >>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its
>> really
>> >>> >>> that easy.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools
>> like
>> >>> >>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either
>> built
>> >>> in or
>> >>> >>> plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command line,
>> then
>> >>> that
>> >>> >>> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Thad
>> >>> >>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

James Wing
Thanks, Joe, let me try rephrasing a few of those and see if you agree:

1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor release,
currently 0.6.0, by default?

By default, commits to master will be released in the next major or minor
release.  No commits are included in incremental/patch releases by default.


3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?

support/0.5.x will be maintained until the first of the following events:
a.) 0.6.0 is released (next minor release in major release line)
b.) One year after 1.0.0 is released ("previous major release lines up to
one year since the last minor release (0.4.y, 1.5.y) in that line")

But additional support might be available by special request.


4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?

I suppose Jira tickets targeting the next major release could/should/would
(do?) push branches.  That seems weak in the face of a probable stampede
towards the fire exit of a major release, but it's a start.  I'm not aware
of any great solutions here, certainly not for an open-source project.


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> James,
>
> These are great questions to frame and test the model. So let's
> attempt to address them agains the model.
>
> Here is the language for that model at this time:
>
> - We support the newest major release line (0.x, 1.x) and any previous
> major release lines up to one year since the last minor release
> (0.4.y, 1.5.y) in that line
>
> - When master has no releases we will backport any appropriate changes
> (fix, feature, enhancement) to the previous major release line
>
> - Any security or data loss related fixes should be back ported to all
> supported major release lines
>
> - Fixes, improvements, features will be applied to the next release
> (minor or incremental) within a given major release line and will only
> be back ported on a case by case basis for fixes
>
> - In order to consider a patch for back porting to a previous minor
> release line a request needs to be made to the developer or user
> mailing list with a successful discussion and a release candidate
> produced'
>
> So with those above let's review 1 through 5 in turn.
>
> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor
> release, currently 0.6.0, by default?
>
>   Master is for whatever is the most leading edge release line working
> toward the next release.  At the time that a minor release occurs
> against that release line then it branches off into a support/x.y.*
> branch for any further efforts against it.
>
> 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there restrictions
> before or after releases?
>
>   I believe master would be always open for new code.  From some point
> at which a release is considered feature complete then further feature
> enhancements need to go on master as part of the next release effort.
>
> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?
>
>   The most recent minor release line of a major line will be supported
> for up to one year from whenever it was released where support is for
> bug fixes for security or data loss related items.  Releases for older
> minor lines should be considered on a case by case basis and if
> requested.  Otherwise the basic premise is the train is moving
> forward.
>
> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
> release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?
>
>   It must be visible.  It should be placed into a branch until such
> time that it is ready to become the new master.  That time would be
> when the next release will be for that line.  When I think about this
> against the stated model we could probably tweak the wording to better
> articulate that.  I think it was what was meant with 'when master has
> no releases we will backport...' but that is unclear.
>
> 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be
> backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all minor
> releases in the 0.x line?
>
>   Only to the most recent minor release of any still supported major
> line.  However, the catch of 'case by case' determination for older
> minor lines is still in play.  Basically if someone requests it and
> can get enough momentum for it then it should be no problem to produce
> such a release.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:15 PM, James Wing <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I have some rhetorical questions for discussion of the branching model:
> >
> > 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor
> release,
> > currently 0.6.0, by default?
> >
> > 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there restrictions
> > before or after releases?
> >
> > 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?
> >
> > 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
> > release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?
> >
> > 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be
> > backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all
> minor
> > releases in the 0.x line?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Given the discussion has stalled i'd like to turn it more toward a
> >> proposal as we're at a point now where we need to start executing some
> >> of these approaches.  We're actually already seeing it take form in
> >> the support/0.5.x branch and the master branch (which is for 0.6.0 at
> >> this point).
> >>
> >> The proposal then for Git processes based on the other thread [1]
> >> where we outline a support model:
> >>
> >> - We will have a branch for each major release line
> >>
> >> - The branch designated 'master' will be for the latest major release
> >> line under active development
> >>
> >> - Commits against master should be evaluated for whether they should
> >> be cherry-picked to other still supported major release lines
> >> consistent with the community support model
> >>
> >> - When a release occurs a signed tag will be generated and the version
> >> for that major line will be bumped to the next incremental release
> >> snapshot
> >>
> >> - The next commit on a given major release line that requires a minor
> >> version change should increment the minor version number and reset
> >> incremental to zero
> >>
> >> - Major version changes should only ever be prompted from the master
> >> branch and should only occur when a commit warrants changing the major
> >> version at which point a major release line branch should be created
> >> off of master for the previous major release line
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCALJK9a7bWjff7xXGmUtp3nFV3HRmqbLL1StwkXcf5JdohNPRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > I don't want to kill this thread.  It is good to discuss specific
> >> > tooling/procedures.  But I do want to get some consensus discussion
> >> > around Tony's original intent (as I read it).  So kicked off a
> >> > discussion back at that level.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >> While I like gitflow, I can't say I like any of the plugins that are
> >> used.
> >> >> I have worked on some other projects (unfortunately not open source)
> >> that
> >> >> use a gitflow inspired workflow, without ever using a plugin. Nice
> side
> >> >> effect is that I believe this got me better at using git, and
> generally
> >> we
> >> >> all got better at managing merge pain.
> >> >>
> >> >> On merge problems, I think the reason we're operating the way we are
> >> now is
> >> >> to avoid merge mayhem. I think the initial bar for a patch is "can be
> >> >> merged into master", and we have our friend Travis to make this even
> >> easier
> >> >> to know upfront. This greatly simplifies things. If a bugfix is
> "patch
> >> >> needs to be able to apply onto the current release in progress,
> master,
> >> and
> >> >> several other versions we're supporting, with possibly drastically
> >> >> different code", well then things get interesting.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Benson Margulies <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> The issue tracker
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >>
> https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/projects/MJF/issues/MJF-259?filter=allopenissues
> >> >>> might also prove useful in evaluating it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Benson Margulies
> >> >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >>> > I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It worked great,
> until
> >> it
> >> >>> > didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, merge problems.
> No
> >> >>> > one seemed to be maintaining it.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > There's a new offering in this dept:
> >> >>> > https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> >> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in combination
> >> with
> >> >>> >> maven.  It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking
> closely
> >> with
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> >> maven pom.xml version.  gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the pom
> >> >>> version
> >> >>> >> updated with the git release names.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags
> >> >>> synchronized
> >> >>> >> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be
> >> approached
> >> >>> >> with tools that are available through maven rather than from git.
> >> The
> >> >>> >> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal
> with
> >> >>> this
> >> >>> >> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1]
> plugin,
> >> which
> >> >>> >> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a maven
> >> >>> project.
> >> >>> >> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that
> the
> >> >>> master
> >> >>> >> branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the
> >> strict
> >> >>> >> gitflow workflow).  I just mention this, in reference to how some
> >> >>> plugins
> >> >>> >> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <
> [hidden email]
> >> >
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master
> become
> >> >>> primary
> >> >>> >>> development of next release (with feature branches off of it)..
> >> while
> >> >>> you
> >> >>> >>> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches
> >> off of
> >> >>> >>> them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad
> practice !
> >> )
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to
> >> >>> >>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its
> >> really
> >> >>> >>> that easy.
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools
> >> like
> >> >>> >>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either
> >> built
> >> >>> in or
> >> >>> >>> plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command line,
> >> then
> >> >>> that
> >> >>> >>> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>> >>> Thad
> >> >>> >>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
> >> >>> >>>
> >> >>>
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Richard Miskin
Hi,

On a couple of work projects we found that the approach of cherry-picking commits can lead to an unnecessarily complicated history where the same piece of work appears as multiple separate commits on different branches. This can then make it hard to be confident that a bug fix has been applied to all relevant branches. We found that it works better to aim to commit changes to the lowest applicable branch, and then regularly merge those branches to master. This approach is based on the git-flow model (http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ <http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/>).

Looking at the repo there are already a few commits that are duplicated on master and 0.5.1. Using the model I suggest they’d only occur on 0.5.1, and then that branch would get merged to master.

Having the merge commits from the support branch to master makes it explicit in the git history that all bug fixes (and associated tests) have been pulled through to master.

Cheers,
Richard

> On 26 Feb 2016, at 06:59, James Wing <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Joe, let me try rephrasing a few of those and see if you agree:
>
> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor release,
> currently 0.6.0, by default?
>
> By default, commits to master will be released in the next major or minor
> release.  No commits are included in incremental/patch releases by default.
>
>
> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?
>
> support/0.5.x will be maintained until the first of the following events:
> a.) 0.6.0 is released (next minor release in major release line)
> b.) One year after 1.0.0 is released ("previous major release lines up to
> one year since the last minor release (0.4.y, 1.5.y) in that line")
>
> But additional support might be available by special request.
>
>
> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
> release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?
>
> I suppose Jira tickets targeting the next major release could/should/would
> (do?) push branches.  That seems weak in the face of a probable stampede
> towards the fire exit of a major release, but it's a start.  I'm not aware
> of any great solutions here, certainly not for an open-source project.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> James,
>>
>> These are great questions to frame and test the model. So let's
>> attempt to address them agains the model.
>>
>> Here is the language for that model at this time:
>>
>> - We support the newest major release line (0.x, 1.x) and any previous
>> major release lines up to one year since the last minor release
>> (0.4.y, 1.5.y) in that line
>>
>> - When master has no releases we will backport any appropriate changes
>> (fix, feature, enhancement) to the previous major release line
>>
>> - Any security or data loss related fixes should be back ported to all
>> supported major release lines
>>
>> - Fixes, improvements, features will be applied to the next release
>> (minor or incremental) within a given major release line and will only
>> be back ported on a case by case basis for fixes
>>
>> - In order to consider a patch for back porting to a previous minor
>> release line a request needs to be made to the developer or user
>> mailing list with a successful discussion and a release candidate
>> produced'
>>
>> So with those above let's review 1 through 5 in turn.
>>
>> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor
>> release, currently 0.6.0, by default?
>>
>>  Master is for whatever is the most leading edge release line working
>> toward the next release.  At the time that a minor release occurs
>> against that release line then it branches off into a support/x.y.*
>> branch for any further efforts against it.
>>
>> 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there restrictions
>> before or after releases?
>>
>>  I believe master would be always open for new code.  From some point
>> at which a release is considered feature complete then further feature
>> enhancements need to go on master as part of the next release effort.
>>
>> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?
>>
>>  The most recent minor release line of a major line will be supported
>> for up to one year from whenever it was released where support is for
>> bug fixes for security or data loss related items.  Releases for older
>> minor lines should be considered on a case by case basis and if
>> requested.  Otherwise the basic premise is the train is moving
>> forward.
>>
>> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
>> release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?
>>
>>  It must be visible.  It should be placed into a branch until such
>> time that it is ready to become the new master.  That time would be
>> when the next release will be for that line.  When I think about this
>> against the stated model we could probably tweak the wording to better
>> articulate that.  I think it was what was meant with 'when master has
>> no releases we will backport...' but that is unclear.
>>
>> 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be
>> backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all minor
>> releases in the 0.x line?
>>
>>  Only to the most recent minor release of any still supported major
>> line.  However, the catch of 'case by case' determination for older
>> minor lines is still in play.  Basically if someone requests it and
>> can get enough momentum for it then it should be no problem to produce
>> such a release.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:15 PM, James Wing <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I have some rhetorical questions for discussion of the branching model:
>>>
>>> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor
>> release,
>>> currently 0.6.0, by default?
>>>
>>> 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there restrictions
>>> before or after releases?
>>>
>>> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?
>>>
>>> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
>>> release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?
>>>
>>> 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be
>>> backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all
>> minor
>>> releases in the 0.x line?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Given the discussion has stalled i'd like to turn it more toward a
>>>> proposal as we're at a point now where we need to start executing some
>>>> of these approaches.  We're actually already seeing it take form in
>>>> the support/0.5.x branch and the master branch (which is for 0.6.0 at
>>>> this point).
>>>>
>>>> The proposal then for Git processes based on the other thread [1]
>>>> where we outline a support model:
>>>>
>>>> - We will have a branch for each major release line
>>>>
>>>> - The branch designated 'master' will be for the latest major release
>>>> line under active development
>>>>
>>>> - Commits against master should be evaluated for whether they should
>>>> be cherry-picked to other still supported major release lines
>>>> consistent with the community support model
>>>>
>>>> - When a release occurs a signed tag will be generated and the version
>>>> for that major line will be bumped to the next incremental release
>>>> snapshot
>>>>
>>>> - The next commit on a given major release line that requires a minor
>>>> version change should increment the minor version number and reset
>>>> incremental to zero
>>>>
>>>> - Major version changes should only ever be prompted from the master
>>>> branch and should only occur when a commit warrants changing the major
>>>> version at which point a major release line branch should be created
>>>> off of master for the previous major release line
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCALJK9a7bWjff7xXGmUtp3nFV3HRmqbLL1StwkXcf5JdohNPRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> I don't want to kill this thread.  It is good to discuss specific
>>>>> tooling/procedures.  But I do want to get some consensus discussion
>>>>> around Tony's original intent (as I read it).  So kicked off a
>>>>> discussion back at that level.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> While I like gitflow, I can't say I like any of the plugins that are
>>>> used.
>>>>>> I have worked on some other projects (unfortunately not open source)
>>>> that
>>>>>> use a gitflow inspired workflow, without ever using a plugin. Nice
>> side
>>>>>> effect is that I believe this got me better at using git, and
>> generally
>>>> we
>>>>>> all got better at managing merge pain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On merge problems, I think the reason we're operating the way we are
>>>> now is
>>>>>> to avoid merge mayhem. I think the initial bar for a patch is "can be
>>>>>> merged into master", and we have our friend Travis to make this even
>>>> easier
>>>>>> to know upfront. This greatly simplifies things. If a bugfix is
>> "patch
>>>>>> needs to be able to apply onto the current release in progress,
>> master,
>>>> and
>>>>>> several other versions we're supporting, with possibly drastically
>>>>>> different code", well then things get interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Benson Margulies <
>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue tracker
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/projects/MJF/issues/MJF-259?filter=allopenissues
>>>>>>> might also prove useful in evaluating it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Benson Margulies
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It worked great,
>> until
>>>> it
>>>>>>>> didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, merge problems.
>> No
>>>>>>>> one seemed to be maintaining it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a new offering in this dept:
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in combination
>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> maven.  It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking
>> closely
>>>> with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> maven pom.xml version.  gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the pom
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>>>> updated with the git release names.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags
>>>>>>> synchronized
>>>>>>>>> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be
>>>> approached
>>>>>>>>> with tools that are available through maven rather than from git.
>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal
>> with
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1]
>> plugin,
>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a maven
>>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that
>> the
>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>> branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the
>>>> strict
>>>>>>>>> gitflow workflow).  I just mention this, in reference to how some
>>>>>>> plugins
>>>>>>>>> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <
>> [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master
>> become
>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>>>> development of next release (with feature branches off of it)..
>>>> while
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches
>>>> off of
>>>>>>>>>> them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad
>> practice !
>>>> )
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to
>>>>>>>>>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its
>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>> that easy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools
>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either
>>>> built
>>>>>>> in or
>>>>>>>>>> plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command line,
>>>> then
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thad
>>>>>>>>>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

trkurc
Administrator
the reason I like applying patches to both lines is that once code begins
to diverge, cleanly merging into one codebase can be impossible. having
good practices for managing patches and where they apply is paramount for
success.

I expect that divergence to happen with 1.x. I wanted to get in a battle
rhythm of sorts of managing multiple lines, even if the patches COULD be
applied to both in the manner you described.

Joe W and I did a wee bit of scrambling to ensure that tickets marked for
0.5.1 had the right patches in the support branch, and some didn't, so I
think "lesson learned". I do like in the apache infrastructure that if
commits have the appropriate ticket in their commit message, the jira will
have the list of commits and branches those commits were applies to.
However, I think we may need to revisit commit message "hygiene"  if we
relied on this instead of more manual review.





On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Richard Miskin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On a couple of work projects we found that the approach of cherry-picking
> commits can lead to an unnecessarily complicated history where the same
> piece of work appears as multiple separate commits on different branches.
> This can then make it hard to be confident that a bug fix has been applied
> to all relevant branches. We found that it works better to aim to commit
> changes to the lowest applicable branch, and then regularly merge those
> branches to master. This approach is based on the git-flow model (
> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ <
> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/>).
>
> Looking at the repo there are already a few commits that are duplicated on
> master and 0.5.1. Using the model I suggest they’d only occur on 0.5.1, and
> then that branch would get merged to master.
>
> Having the merge commits from the support branch to master makes it
> explicit in the git history that all bug fixes (and associated tests) have
> been pulled through to master.
>
> Cheers,
> Richard
>
> > On 26 Feb 2016, at 06:59, James Wing <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Joe, let me try rephrasing a few of those and see if you agree:
> >
> > 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor
> release,
> > currently 0.6.0, by default?
> >
> > By default, commits to master will be released in the next major or minor
> > release.  No commits are included in incremental/patch releases by
> default.
> >
> >
> > 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?
> >
> > support/0.5.x will be maintained until the first of the following events:
> > a.) 0.6.0 is released (next minor release in major release line)
> > b.) One year after 1.0.0 is released ("previous major release lines up to
> > one year since the last minor release (0.4.y, 1.5.y) in that line")
> >
> > But additional support might be available by special request.
> >
> >
> > 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
> > release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?
> >
> > I suppose Jira tickets targeting the next major release
> could/should/would
> > (do?) push branches.  That seems weak in the face of a probable stampede
> > towards the fire exit of a major release, but it's a start.  I'm not
> aware
> > of any great solutions here, certainly not for an open-source project.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> James,
> >>
> >> These are great questions to frame and test the model. So let's
> >> attempt to address them agains the model.
> >>
> >> Here is the language for that model at this time:
> >>
> >> - We support the newest major release line (0.x, 1.x) and any previous
> >> major release lines up to one year since the last minor release
> >> (0.4.y, 1.5.y) in that line
> >>
> >> - When master has no releases we will backport any appropriate changes
> >> (fix, feature, enhancement) to the previous major release line
> >>
> >> - Any security or data loss related fixes should be back ported to all
> >> supported major release lines
> >>
> >> - Fixes, improvements, features will be applied to the next release
> >> (minor or incremental) within a given major release line and will only
> >> be back ported on a case by case basis for fixes
> >>
> >> - In order to consider a patch for back porting to a previous minor
> >> release line a request needs to be made to the developer or user
> >> mailing list with a successful discussion and a release candidate
> >> produced'
> >>
> >> So with those above let's review 1 through 5 in turn.
> >>
> >> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor
> >> release, currently 0.6.0, by default?
> >>
> >>  Master is for whatever is the most leading edge release line working
> >> toward the next release.  At the time that a minor release occurs
> >> against that release line then it branches off into a support/x.y.*
> >> branch for any further efforts against it.
> >>
> >> 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there
> restrictions
> >> before or after releases?
> >>
> >>  I believe master would be always open for new code.  From some point
> >> at which a release is considered feature complete then further feature
> >> enhancements need to go on master as part of the next release effort.
> >>
> >> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?
> >>
> >>  The most recent minor release line of a major line will be supported
> >> for up to one year from whenever it was released where support is for
> >> bug fixes for security or data loss related items.  Releases for older
> >> minor lines should be considered on a case by case basis and if
> >> requested.  Otherwise the basic premise is the train is moving
> >> forward.
> >>
> >> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
> >> release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?
> >>
> >>  It must be visible.  It should be placed into a branch until such
> >> time that it is ready to become the new master.  That time would be
> >> when the next release will be for that line.  When I think about this
> >> against the stated model we could probably tweak the wording to better
> >> articulate that.  I think it was what was meant with 'when master has
> >> no releases we will backport...' but that is unclear.
> >>
> >> 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be
> >> backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all
> minor
> >> releases in the 0.x line?
> >>
> >>  Only to the most recent minor release of any still supported major
> >> line.  However, the catch of 'case by case' determination for older
> >> minor lines is still in play.  Basically if someone requests it and
> >> can get enough momentum for it then it should be no problem to produce
> >> such a release.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:15 PM, James Wing <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> I have some rhetorical questions for discussion of the branching model:
> >>>
> >>> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor
> >> release,
> >>> currently 0.6.0, by default?
> >>>
> >>> 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there
> restrictions
> >>> before or after releases?
> >>>
> >>> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?
> >>>
> >>> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
> >>> release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?
> >>>
> >>> 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be
> >>> backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all
> >> minor
> >>> releases in the 0.x line?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Given the discussion has stalled i'd like to turn it more toward a
> >>>> proposal as we're at a point now where we need to start executing some
> >>>> of these approaches.  We're actually already seeing it take form in
> >>>> the support/0.5.x branch and the master branch (which is for 0.6.0 at
> >>>> this point).
> >>>>
> >>>> The proposal then for Git processes based on the other thread [1]
> >>>> where we outline a support model:
> >>>>
> >>>> - We will have a branch for each major release line
> >>>>
> >>>> - The branch designated 'master' will be for the latest major release
> >>>> line under active development
> >>>>
> >>>> - Commits against master should be evaluated for whether they should
> >>>> be cherry-picked to other still supported major release lines
> >>>> consistent with the community support model
> >>>>
> >>>> - When a release occurs a signed tag will be generated and the version
> >>>> for that major line will be bumped to the next incremental release
> >>>> snapshot
> >>>>
> >>>> - The next commit on a given major release line that requires a minor
> >>>> version change should increment the minor version number and reset
> >>>> incremental to zero
> >>>>
> >>>> - Major version changes should only ever be prompted from the master
> >>>> branch and should only occur when a commit warrants changing the major
> >>>> version at which point a major release line branch should be created
> >>>> off of master for the previous major release line
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>>
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCALJK9a7bWjff7xXGmUtp3nFV3HRmqbLL1StwkXcf5JdohNPRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> Joe
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>> I don't want to kill this thread.  It is good to discuss specific
> >>>>> tooling/procedures.  But I do want to get some consensus discussion
> >>>>> around Tony's original intent (as I read it).  So kicked off a
> >>>>> discussion back at that level.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>> While I like gitflow, I can't say I like any of the plugins that are
> >>>> used.
> >>>>>> I have worked on some other projects (unfortunately not open source)
> >>>> that
> >>>>>> use a gitflow inspired workflow, without ever using a plugin. Nice
> >> side
> >>>>>> effect is that I believe this got me better at using git, and
> >> generally
> >>>> we
> >>>>>> all got better at managing merge pain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On merge problems, I think the reason we're operating the way we are
> >>>> now is
> >>>>>> to avoid merge mayhem. I think the initial bar for a patch is "can
> be
> >>>>>> merged into master", and we have our friend Travis to make this even
> >>>> easier
> >>>>>> to know upfront. This greatly simplifies things. If a bugfix is
> >> "patch
> >>>>>> needs to be able to apply onto the current release in progress,
> >> master,
> >>>> and
> >>>>>> several other versions we're supporting, with possibly drastically
> >>>>>> different code", well then things get interesting.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Benson Margulies <
> >>>> [hidden email]>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The issue tracker
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/projects/MJF/issues/MJF-259?filter=allopenissues
> >>>>>>> might also prove useful in evaluating it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Benson Margulies
> >>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It worked great,
> >> until
> >>>> it
> >>>>>>>> didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, merge problems.
> >> No
> >>>>>>>> one seemed to be maintaining it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There's a new offering in this dept:
> >>>>>>>> https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft <[hidden email]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in combination
> >>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> maven.  It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking
> >> closely
> >>>> with
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> maven pom.xml version.  gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the pom
> >>>>>>> version
> >>>>>>>>> updated with the git release names.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags
> >>>>>>> synchronized
> >>>>>>>>> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be
> >>>> approached
> >>>>>>>>> with tools that are available through maven rather than from git.
> >>>> The
> >>>>>>>>> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal
> >> with
> >>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1]
> >> plugin,
> >>>> which
> >>>>>>>>> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a maven
> >>>>>>> project.
> >>>>>>>>> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that
> >> the
> >>>>>>> master
> >>>>>>>>> branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the
> >>>> strict
> >>>>>>>>> gitflow workflow).  I just mention this, in reference to how some
> >>>>>>> plugins
> >>>>>>>>> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <
> >> [hidden email]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master
> >> become
> >>>>>>> primary
> >>>>>>>>>> development of next release (with feature branches off of it)..
> >>>> while
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>>>>> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches
> >>>> off of
> >>>>>>>>>> them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad
> >> practice !
> >>>> )
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone to
> >>>>>>>>>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding. Its
> >>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>> that easy.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and tools
> >>>> like
> >>>>>>>>>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either
> >>>> built
> >>>>>>> in or
> >>>>>>>>>> plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command line,
> >>>> then
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thad
> >>>>>>>>>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] git branching model

Aldrin Piri
On board with Tony's points.  I think the realities of merging in practice
when that "breaking point" of sorts occurs will make the complexity and
overhead quite difficult and maybe even more error prone than the cherry
picking approach with some additional guidelines.  When the codebase
drastically changes, the merge conflicts could be quite severe and without
a good knowledge of each part of the codebase involved during that process,
a committer may introduce regressions.

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:

> the reason I like applying patches to both lines is that once code begins
> to diverge, cleanly merging into one codebase can be impossible. having
> good practices for managing patches and where they apply is paramount for
> success.
>
> I expect that divergence to happen with 1.x. I wanted to get in a battle
> rhythm of sorts of managing multiple lines, even if the patches COULD be
> applied to both in the manner you described.
>
> Joe W and I did a wee bit of scrambling to ensure that tickets marked for
> 0.5.1 had the right patches in the support branch, and some didn't, so I
> think "lesson learned". I do like in the apache infrastructure that if
> commits have the appropriate ticket in their commit message, the jira will
> have the list of commits and branches those commits were applies to.
> However, I think we may need to revisit commit message "hygiene"  if we
> relied on this instead of more manual review.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Richard Miskin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On a couple of work projects we found that the approach of cherry-picking
> > commits can lead to an unnecessarily complicated history where the same
> > piece of work appears as multiple separate commits on different branches.
> > This can then make it hard to be confident that a bug fix has been
> applied
> > to all relevant branches. We found that it works better to aim to commit
> > changes to the lowest applicable branch, and then regularly merge those
> > branches to master. This approach is based on the git-flow model (
> > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ <
> > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/>).
> >
> > Looking at the repo there are already a few commits that are duplicated
> on
> > master and 0.5.1. Using the model I suggest they’d only occur on 0.5.1,
> and
> > then that branch would get merged to master.
> >
> > Having the merge commits from the support branch to master makes it
> > explicit in the git history that all bug fixes (and associated tests)
> have
> > been pulled through to master.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Richard
> >
> > > On 26 Feb 2016, at 06:59, James Wing <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Joe, let me try rephrasing a few of those and see if you agree:
> > >
> > > 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor
> > release,
> > > currently 0.6.0, by default?
> > >
> > > By default, commits to master will be released in the next major or
> minor
> > > release.  No commits are included in incremental/patch releases by
> > default.
> > >
> > >
> > > 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?
> > >
> > > support/0.5.x will be maintained until the first of the following
> events:
> > > a.) 0.6.0 is released (next minor release in major release line)
> > > b.) One year after 1.0.0 is released ("previous major release lines up
> to
> > > one year since the last minor release (0.4.y, 1.5.y) in that line")
> > >
> > > But additional support might be available by special request.
> > >
> > >
> > > 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
> > > release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?
> > >
> > > I suppose Jira tickets targeting the next major release
> > could/should/would
> > > (do?) push branches.  That seems weak in the face of a probable
> stampede
> > > towards the fire exit of a major release, but it's a start.  I'm not
> > aware
> > > of any great solutions here, certainly not for an open-source project.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> James,
> > >>
> > >> These are great questions to frame and test the model. So let's
> > >> attempt to address them agains the model.
> > >>
> > >> Here is the language for that model at this time:
> > >>
> > >> - We support the newest major release line (0.x, 1.x) and any previous
> > >> major release lines up to one year since the last minor release
> > >> (0.4.y, 1.5.y) in that line
> > >>
> > >> - When master has no releases we will backport any appropriate changes
> > >> (fix, feature, enhancement) to the previous major release line
> > >>
> > >> - Any security or data loss related fixes should be back ported to all
> > >> supported major release lines
> > >>
> > >> - Fixes, improvements, features will be applied to the next release
> > >> (minor or incremental) within a given major release line and will only
> > >> be back ported on a case by case basis for fixes
> > >>
> > >> - In order to consider a patch for back porting to a previous minor
> > >> release line a request needs to be made to the developer or user
> > >> mailing list with a successful discussion and a release candidate
> > >> produced'
> > >>
> > >> So with those above let's review 1 through 5 in turn.
> > >>
> > >> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor
> > >> release, currently 0.6.0, by default?
> > >>
> > >>  Master is for whatever is the most leading edge release line working
> > >> toward the next release.  At the time that a minor release occurs
> > >> against that release line then it branches off into a support/x.y.*
> > >> branch for any further efforts against it.
> > >>
> > >> 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there
> > restrictions
> > >> before or after releases?
> > >>
> > >>  I believe master would be always open for new code.  From some point
> > >> at which a release is considered feature complete then further feature
> > >> enhancements need to go on master as part of the next release effort.
> > >>
> > >> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?
> > >>
> > >>  The most recent minor release line of a major line will be supported
> > >> for up to one year from whenever it was released where support is for
> > >> bug fixes for security or data loss related items.  Releases for older
> > >> minor lines should be considered on a case by case basis and if
> > >> requested.  Otherwise the basic premise is the train is moving
> > >> forward.
> > >>
> > >> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
> > >> release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?
> > >>
> > >>  It must be visible.  It should be placed into a branch until such
> > >> time that it is ready to become the new master.  That time would be
> > >> when the next release will be for that line.  When I think about this
> > >> against the stated model we could probably tweak the wording to better
> > >> articulate that.  I think it was what was meant with 'when master has
> > >> no releases we will backport...' but that is unclear.
> > >>
> > >> 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be
> > >> backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all
> > minor
> > >> releases in the 0.x line?
> > >>
> > >>  Only to the most recent minor release of any still supported major
> > >> line.  However, the catch of 'case by case' determination for older
> > >> minor lines is still in play.  Basically if someone requests it and
> > >> can get enough momentum for it then it should be no problem to produce
> > >> such a release.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Joe
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:15 PM, James Wing <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>> I have some rhetorical questions for discussion of the branching
> model:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1.) Commits merged to master today are destined for the next minor
> > >> release,
> > >>> currently 0.6.0, by default?
> > >>>
> > >>> 2.) Is master always open for merging new code, or are there
> > restrictions
> > >>> before or after releases?
> > >>>
> > >>> 3.) How long will support/0.5.x be maintained?
> > >>>
> > >>> 4.) Where is compatibility-breaking code destined for a future major
> > >>> release stored?  Is it visible anywhere?
> > >>>
> > >>> 5.) A critical data/security bug found after 1.0 would eligible to be
> > >>> backported only to the last minor release in the 0.x line, or to all
> > >> minor
> > >>> releases in the 0.x line?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Given the discussion has stalled i'd like to turn it more toward a
> > >>>> proposal as we're at a point now where we need to start executing
> some
> > >>>> of these approaches.  We're actually already seeing it take form in
> > >>>> the support/0.5.x branch and the master branch (which is for 0.6.0
> at
> > >>>> this point).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The proposal then for Git processes based on the other thread [1]
> > >>>> where we outline a support model:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - We will have a branch for each major release line
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - The branch designated 'master' will be for the latest major
> release
> > >>>> line under active development
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - Commits against master should be evaluated for whether they should
> > >>>> be cherry-picked to other still supported major release lines
> > >>>> consistent with the community support model
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - When a release occurs a signed tag will be generated and the
> version
> > >>>> for that major line will be bumped to the next incremental release
> > >>>> snapshot
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - The next commit on a given major release line that requires a
> minor
> > >>>> version change should increment the minor version number and reset
> > >>>> incremental to zero
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - Major version changes should only ever be prompted from the master
> > >>>> branch and should only occur when a commit warrants changing the
> major
> > >>>> version at which point a major release line branch should be created
> > >>>> off of master for the previous major release line
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1]
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCALJK9a7bWjff7xXGmUtp3nFV3HRmqbLL1StwkXcf5JdohNPRmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks
> > >>>> Joe
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>>>> I don't want to kill this thread.  It is good to discuss specific
> > >>>>> tooling/procedures.  But I do want to get some consensus discussion
> > >>>>> around Tony's original intent (as I read it).  So kicked off a
> > >>>>> discussion back at that level.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>> While I like gitflow, I can't say I like any of the plugins that
> are
> > >>>> used.
> > >>>>>> I have worked on some other projects (unfortunately not open
> source)
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>> use a gitflow inspired workflow, without ever using a plugin. Nice
> > >> side
> > >>>>>> effect is that I believe this got me better at using git, and
> > >> generally
> > >>>> we
> > >>>>>> all got better at managing merge pain.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On merge problems, I think the reason we're operating the way we
> are
> > >>>> now is
> > >>>>>> to avoid merge mayhem. I think the initial bar for a patch is "can
> > be
> > >>>>>> merged into master", and we have our friend Travis to make this
> even
> > >>>> easier
> > >>>>>> to know upfront. This greatly simplifies things. If a bugfix is
> > >> "patch
> > >>>>>> needs to be able to apply onto the current release in progress,
> > >> master,
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>>> several other versions we're supporting, with possibly drastically
> > >>>>>> different code", well then things get interesting.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Benson Margulies <
> > >>>> [hidden email]>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The issue tracker
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
> https://ecosystem.atlassian.net/projects/MJF/issues/MJF-259?filter=allopenissues
> > >>>>>>> might also prove useful in evaluating it.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Benson Margulies
> > >>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> I tried to use the bitbucket gitflow plugin. It worked great,
> > >> until
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>>>>> didn't. It would get into terrible, inexplicable, merge
> problems.
> > >> No
> > >>>>>>>> one seemed to be maintaining it.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> There's a new offering in this dept:
> > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/egineering-llc/gitflow-helper-maven-plugin.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Adam Taft <[hidden email]>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> One of the harder things with gitflow is using it in
> combination
> > >>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>> maven.  It's ideal that the tags and releases are tracking
> > >> closely
> > >>>> with
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> maven pom.xml version.  gitflow, on its own, doesn't keep the
> pom
> > >>>>>>> version
> > >>>>>>>>> updated with the git release names.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Because of the general importance of keeping releases and tags
> > >>>>>>> synchronized
> > >>>>>>>>> with the pom version, I think whatever we do, it needs to be
> > >>>> approached
> > >>>>>>>>> with tools that are available through maven rather than from
> git.
> > >>>> The
> > >>>>>>>>> git-flow plugin (referenced by Thad) doesn't directly help deal
> > >> with
> > >>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>> synchronization, since it's a git tool, not a maven tool.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I've been using, with reasonable success, the jgitflow [1]
> > >> plugin,
> > >>>> which
> > >>>>>>>>> does a reasonable job of following the gitflow model for a
> maven
> > >>>>>>> project.
> > >>>>>>>>> I don't recommend this plugin for NIFI, because it insists that
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>> master
> > >>>>>>>>> branch is strictly used for published release tags (as per the
> > >>>> strict
> > >>>>>>>>> gitflow workflow).  I just mention this, in reference to how
> some
> > >>>>>>> plugins
> > >>>>>>>>> are tackling the gitflow and maven synchronization issue.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> [1] http://jgitflow.bitbucket.org/
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Thad Guidry <
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow.  Your Master
> > >> become
> > >>>>>>> primary
> > >>>>>>>>>> development of next release (with feature branches off of
> it)..
> > >>>> while
> > >>>>>>> you
> > >>>>>>>>>> continue to have release branches that can have hot fix
> branches
> > >>>> off of
> > >>>>>>>>>> them.  (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad
> > >> practice !
> > >>>> )
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Here is the Git-flow cheat sheet to make it easy for everyone
> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> understand... just scroll it down to gain the understanding.
> Its
> > >>>> really
> > >>>>>>>>>> that easy.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Most large projects have moved into using git-flow ... and
> tools
> > >>>> like
> > >>>>>>>>>> Eclipse Mars, IntelliJ, Sourcetree, etc...have Git-flow either
> > >>>> built
> > >>>>>>> in or
> > >>>>>>>>>> plugin available now.  If you want to live on the command
> line,
> > >>>> then
> > >>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>> is handled easily by the instructions in the above link.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Thad
> > >>>>>>>>>> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
12