[infinispan-dev] Infinispan 7.1 plan

[Emmanuel Bernard]

There is a difference between cherry picking and rebasing when it comes to reapply a work on top of a branch. Do you dislike both equally compared to a merge (aka railroad nexus git history approach)?


On 20 Oct 2014, at 16:47, Tristan Tarrant <ttarrant at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
> with the imminent release of 7.0.0.CR2 we are reaching the end of this 
> release cycle. There have been a ton of improvements (maybe too many) 
> and a lot of time has passed since the previous version (maybe to much).
> Following up on my previous e-mail about future plans, here's a recap of 
> a plan which I believe will allow us to move at a much quicker pace:
> 
> For the next minor releases I would like to suggest the following strategy:
> - use a 3 month timebox where we strive to maintain master in an "always releasable" state
> - complex feature work will need to happen onto dedicated feature branches, using the usual GitHub pull-request workflow
> - only when a feature is complete (code, tests, docs, reviewed, CI-checked) it will be merged back into master
> - if a feature is running late it will be postponed to the following minor release so as not to hinder other development
> 
> I am also going to suggest dropping the cherry-picking approach and going with git merge. In order to achieve this we need CI to be always in top form with 0 failures in master. This will allow merging a PR directly from GitHub's interface. We obviously need to trust our tools and our existing code base.
> 
> This is the plan for 7.1.0:
> 
> 13 November 7.1.0.Alpha1
> 18 December 7.1.0.Beta1
> 15 January  7.1.0.CR1
> 30 January  7.1.0.Final
> 
> 
> Tristan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev