[aerogear-dev] Maintenance branches
Summers Pittman
supittma at redhat.com
Fri Mar 22 09:17:17 EDT 2013
+1
On 03/22/2013 08:32 AM, Kris Borchers wrote:
> I definitely think branches are necessary. Just from my experience
> with jQuery, this has worked well.
>
> When a new stable, minor version is released, a branch is created for
> it. So we would create a 1.0-stable branch or something like that.
> When bugs are fixed, they are fixed in master, then cherry-picked over
> to the current stable branch. When we are ready for a patch release
> (1.0.1 for example), that can be tagged directly from the 1.0-stable
> branch and all of those bug fixes already exist in master.
>
> In the meantime, new features (Notifier for example) are developed in
> a feature branch (currently we are doing that in the Notifier branch).
> Those branches occasionally have master merged into them to keep them
> up to date. Then, when we are ready to add a feature to the next
> release, the feature branch is merged into master. Then, based on our
> versioning policy, we create a new minor or major release by first
> creating a new stable branch (1.1-stable or 2.0-stable depending on
> what we're releasing), tag the release from that new branch, then
> delete the old stable branch.
>
> I really like this method because it allows for simultaneous new
> development and maintenance and easily keeps all branches and releases
> up to date with latest bug fixes.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On Mar 22, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Daniel Passos <daniel at passos.me
> <mailto:daniel at passos.me>> wrote:
>
>> IMO tags work fine.
>>
>> I don't think a branch is necessary. If we have something to fix, we
>> create a temporary branch, fix, merge to master and create a tag for it
>>
>> Daniel Passos
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org
>> <mailto:bruno at abstractj.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dan, I believe that we will stick with the following approach
>> http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-RFC-Initial-Versioning-Policy-td1914.html
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
>> -
>> @abstractj
>> -
>> Volenti Nihil Difficile
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, March 22, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
>>
>> > > I'm not sure if we really need branches, maybe just tags?
>> >
>> > Not sure how that would work but I'd be interested to learn. I
>> could not determine just by looking at the torguebox repo as then
>> have branches for what looks like maintenance/dev releases (and
>> also tags of course)
>> > As long as we all do the same I'm happy.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 22 March 2013 10:23, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org
>> <mailto:bruno at abstractj.org> (mailto:bruno at abstractj.org
>> <mailto:bruno at abstractj.org>)> wrote:
>> > > I'm not sure if we really need branches, maybe just tags?
>> https://github.com/torquebox/torquebox for example has been
>> working with tags, branches at least to me might lead to confusion.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > "The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
>> > > -
>> > > @abstractj
>> > > -
>> > > Volenti Nihil Difficile
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Friday, March 22, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Sebastien Blanc wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +1 to create a 1.0.0 branch
>> > > > For 1.0.1 not sure if it has to be also branch or just the
>> master otherwise Master should be for 1.1 stuff ?
>> > > > Seb
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Bevenius
>> <daniel.bevenius at gmail.com <mailto:daniel.bevenius at gmail.com>
>> (mailto:daniel.bevenius at gmail.com
>> <mailto:daniel.bevenius at gmail.com>)
>> (mailto:daniel.bevenius at gmail.com
>> <mailto:daniel.bevenius at gmail.com>)> wrote:
>> > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'd like to discuss how to handle maintenance branches.
>> Sorry if this has already been discussed, I think Kris posted
>> something about this but I was not able to find it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > For example, now that we are about to release 1.0.0 we
>> will tag that release. After that should we create a 1.0.1 branch
>> for patches/bugfixes and then continue with new features in master?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Since we are in a waiting state at the moment, which
>> could happen again, should we perhaps create a branch named
>> 1.0.0, which we can use until the release and then tag it and
>> remove that branch. After that any issues would be fixed in the
>> 1.0.1 branch.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Does this sound correct?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > /Dan
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
>> > > > > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>)
>> (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>)
>> > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > aerogear-dev mailing list
>> > > > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>)
>> (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>)
>> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
>> > > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>)
>> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > aerogear-dev mailing list
>> > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>)
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130322/bb00e2f0/attachment.html
More information about the aerogear-dev
mailing list