[Hawkular-dev] Branch Kettle?

[Thomas Heute]

On 05/12/2015 08:43 PM, Jay Shaughnessy wrote:
>
> Related to the "Adding git SHA1 & Co. to manifest.mf to improve
> traceability" thread...

First I think we should decouple the 2 :) Adding SHA1 was a cheap 
addition without additional steps for developers that can be useful in 
last resort for corner cases but doesn't significantly help the main issue.

> In the interim between now and when we move to strong versioning could
> we perhaps just create a "stable" branch for kettle?  Note the term
> "stable" as opposed to "release" or something like that.  This idea was
> kicked around at the F2F as a possible solution.
>
> The stable branch would have poms updated with non-snapshot versions of
> the components and so would be reproducible.  It could be used for demos
> without fear of snapshot regression.  It could be used by QE for
> test-case development and [non-release] qualification. Kettle itself
> could be versioned, bumping it's version whenever a consumed component
> version was updated.

I think the idea was worth mentioning, but I really doubt that 
maintaining several branches (and make sure they are update and really 
work) without someone in charge would work.

> Components would be required to make at least an initial release to get
> things going, and then should make subsequent releases at relatively
> short intervals, maybe every few weeks.

I would rather see "master" using tagged version and if someone working 
on Kettle needs a more recent version of a SNAPSHOT work in a branch 
(that he "maintains") where he would only change the version of 
components he needs then merge in master when the component is released 
(and delete the branch). Lifetime of the branch should be 2-3 weeks.

Thomas


>
> Will this work and be helpful?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>