[aerogear-dev] Maintenance branches

Fri Mar 22 08:44:11 EDT 2013

+1

had done that in asf land in the past as well - worked well;

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>wrote:

> +1 I like this approach
>
> *naming *policy versioning and *branching *policy are IMO 2 differents
> things
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Kris Borchers <kris at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> I definitely think branches are necessary. Just from my experience with
>> jQuery, this has worked well.
>>
>> When a new stable, minor version is released, a branch is created for it.
>> So we would create a 1.0-stable branch or something like that. When bugs
>> are fixed, they are fixed in master, then cherry-picked over to the current
>> stable branch. When we are ready for a patch release (1.0.1 for example),
>> that can be tagged directly from the 1.0-stable branch and all of those bug
>> fixes already exist in master.
>>
>> In the meantime, new features (Notifier for example) are developed in a
>> feature branch (currently we are doing that in the Notifier branch). Those
>> branches occasionally have master merged into them to keep them up to date.
>> Then, when we are ready to add a feature to the next release, the feature
>> branch is merged into master. Then, based on our versioning policy, we
>> create a new minor or major release by first creating a new stable branch
>> (1.1-stable or 2.0-stable depending on what we're releasing), tag the
>> release from that new branch, then delete the old stable branch.
>>
>> I really like this method because it allows for simultaneous new
>> development and maintenance and easily keeps all branches and releases up
>> to date with latest bug fixes.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Daniel Passos <daniel at passos.me> wrote:
>>
>> IMO tags work fine.
>>
>> I don't think a branch is necessary. If we have something to fix, we
>> create a temporary branch, fix, merge to master and create a tag for it
>>
>> Daniel Passos
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dan, I believe that we will stick with the following approach
>>> http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-RFC-Initial-Versioning-Policy-td1914.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
>>> -
>>> @abstractj
>>> -
>>> Volenti Nihil Difficile
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, March 22, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
>>>
>>> > > I'm not sure if we really need branches, maybe just tags?
>>> >
>>> > Not sure how that would work but I'd be interested to learn. I could
>>> not determine just by looking at the torguebox repo as then have branches
>>> for what looks like maintenance/dev releases (and also tags of course)
>>> > As long as we all do the same I'm happy.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 22 March 2013 10:23, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org (mailto:
>>> bruno at abstractj.org)> wrote:
>>> > > I'm not sure if we really need branches, maybe just tags?
>>> https://github.com/torquebox/torquebox for example has been working
>>> with tags, branches at least to me might lead to confusion.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > "The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
>>> > > -
>>> > > @abstractj
>>> > > -
>>> > > Volenti Nihil Difficile
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Friday, March 22, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Sebastien Blanc wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > +1 to create a 1.0.0 branch
>>> > > > For 1.0.1 not sure if it has to be also branch or just the master
>>> otherwise Master should be for 1.1 stuff ?
>>> > > > Seb
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Bevenius <
>>> daniel.bevenius at gmail.com (mailto:daniel.bevenius at gmail.com) (mailto:
>>> daniel.bevenius at gmail.com)> wrote:
>>> > > > > Hi all,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I'd like to discuss how to handle maintenance branches. Sorry if
>>> this has already been discussed, I think Kris posted something about this
>>> but I was not able to find it.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > For example, now that we are about to release 1.0.0 we will tag
>>> that release. After that should we create a 1.0.1 branch for
>>> patches/bugfixes and then continue with new features in master?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Since we are in a waiting state at the moment, which could
>>> happen again, should we perhaps create a branch named 1.0.0, which we can
>>> use until the release and then tag it and remove that branch. After that
>>> any issues would be fixed in the 1.0.1 branch.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Does this sound correct?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Thanks,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > /Dan
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> > > > > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org (mailto:
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org) (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org)
>>> > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> > > > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org)
>>> (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org)
>>> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> > > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org)
>>> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org)
>>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>

-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130322/556beba4/attachment-0001.html 