[hibernate-dev] ORM 6 branch

[Steve Ebersole]

We seem to be "arguing" the same thing.  As I said above, I am fine with
moving it upstream.  Just making sure everyone has the same expectations
(re-writing, eventual removal, etc) of that upstream branch because they
are not typical of our upstream branches.

I would not really call it "hidden away", but I agree that it should be
easy to access.

Not sure what you mean about your "labelling" point.  Label how?  Maybe you
are referring to the "expectations"?  I agree that the name `wip/...`
already implies these expectations.  Again, that is exactly why we borrowed
that convention from Vlad in the first place.


On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:27 AM Yoann Rodiere <yoann at hibernate.org> wrote:

> I may be wrong, but I understood your message as an argument that moving
> 6.0 to upstream would be bad, because having a topic branch upstream is not
> a good practice.
>
> Topic branches are typically short-lived and focus on a specific feature
> or bugfix. I agree topic branches in upstream would be a mess.
>
> But let's be honest: wip/6.0 has been around for years, includes tons of
> different improvements, and has impacts in many places of the codebase
> (nearly 10,000 files from what I can see) . It hardly qualifies as a topic
> branch anymore, and even if we extend the definition to include such a
> massive changeset, we can probably agree it's not your typical "change a
> dozen files and we're done" topic branch. Wouldn't an atypical branch call
> for an atypical workflow?
>
> Besides... and perhaps more importantly, it's the branch everyone seems to
> be working on these days. Once 6.0.0.Alpha1 has been released, it would
> seem odd for all that work to be hidden away in someone's fork, be it the
> project leader's. If the branch is regularly rewritten, so be it: at least
> it should be easily found.
>
> Again, no problem with labelling it differently to make clear that we
> offer no guarantee of a stable history on that branch. To me, the name
> "wip/6.0" makes this very clear already.
>
>
> Yoann Rodière
> Hibernate NoORM Team
> yoann at hibernate.org
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 14:42, Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:22 AM Davide D'Alto <davide at hibernate.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 for the creation of the branch upstream and everything Yoann said.
>> >
>> > One curiosity,  once there is an alpha, why would you delete the whole
>> > branch?
>> > Couldn't you change everything on the existing branch without deleting
>> it?
>> > It's unusual to rewrite the history of upstream branches but we have
>> > done it before.
>> >
>>
>> Well first, I never said it would be deleted after the Alpha.  I said it
>> would be deleted *at some point*, meaning at some point after 6 is moved
>> to
>> master.
>>
>> Also, IMO, topic branches upstream are generally speaking a very bad idea.
>> So this is something we hardly ever do - maybe y'all do on other projects,
>> dunno.  But either way, it is very common for a topic branch to go away
>> eventually.
>>
>> As far as re-writing history, sure it is unusual but we are already in the
>> realm of unusual merely by having a topic branch upstream
>>
> _______________________________________________
>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>>
>