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(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev