[keycloak-dev] Some branches are gone?
bburke at redhat.com
Sat Sep 10 07:36:03 EDT 2016
We maintain branches that our product is based on. I'm not
understanding why you can't create and maintain a branch yourself based
on a release tag. Git should be flexible enough to provide the source
management you require.
On 9/9/16 11:35 AM, Thomas Darimont wrote:
> Hello Bill,
> Thanks for clarification.
> Using a tagged version as the base for a fork is not very practical,
> since one now needs to investigate
> every commit in master (or between two tags) whether or not they are
> compatible with the base version used for the fork - especially when a
> security fix needs to be applied quickly. That was actually the main
> idea behind the "let's base our fork on a recent maintenance branch"
> approach... once a new maintenance branch is created we'd upgrade to
> the latest maintenace branch version.
> I understand that it is very laborious to maintain a lot of
> maintenance branches but I think retaining a few
> intermediate branches wouldn't hurt too much. Sometimes it's just
> about doing a git cherry-pick on a commit
> or massging a commit a little bit to make it applicable to an earlier
> This model is quite common for other projects e.g. the Spring Ecosystem.
> Retiring old branches branches (e.g. <= 1.9) is IMHO fine but as said
> - the Keycloak team
> should IMHO really reconsider your maintenance policy.
> Why base a fork on an earlier version? Well sometimes one needs to
> apply functionality or security patches
> or integrate new features that are tested but not yet released in the
> form of an official release by the Keycloak project.
> I strive for being as close as possible as to the latest released
> version because I assume that if security, stability or performance
> problems were found in older versions then the probability that they
> are corrected in a newer (potentially not yet released)
> version is quite high.
> As Juraci suggested, one could use github commit templates to ensure
> that PR's are sent against the master branch.
> (raw format)
> 2016-09-09 14:33 GMT+02:00 Bill Burke <bburke at redhat.com
> <mailto:bburke at redhat.com>>:
> We won't be reviewing or accepting PRs to anything but master and
> 1.9.x. We just don't have the cycles to maintain older versions. We
> strive to maintain backward compatibility whenever possible. WE
> try to
> make keycloak upgradable and will make fixes around this accordingly.
> We have said this from day one. Releases are tagged, so if you need to
> stay on a specific version for whatever reason, then you can
> branch and
> maintain the branch yourselves. I don't recommend this though as you
> will get no help from us and you'll be on your own. If stability is
> something you strive for, then I suggest you work off the community
> version our product is based on: 1.9.x.
> On 9/9/16 8:24 AM, Juraci Paixão Kröhling wrote:
> > On 09/09/2016 02:17 PM, Stian Thorgersen wrote:
> >> With a new minor release of Keycloak every 6 weeks that ends up
> being a
> >> lot of dead branches to keep around. Removing them makes it
> clear they
> >> are no longer maintained and stops people from sending PRs to
> them (this
> >> regularly happens).
> > How about adding a CONTRIBUTING.md , telling people to send PRs
> only to
> > the branches you'd review/accept? If there's a CONTRIBUTING.md file,
> > GitHub will add a link to it on the "Submit PR" page.
> > - Juca.
> > _______________________________________________
> > keycloak-dev mailing list
> > keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-dev
> keycloak-dev mailing list
> keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:keycloak-dev at lists.jboss.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the keycloak-dev