Re: [Hawkular-dev] Branch Kettle?
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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev