[hibernate-dev] ORM 6 branch

[Yoann Rodiere]

Yes, it seems we all agree then. Great :)

About the "labelling" part, yes, that's what I meant.

Yoann Rodière
Hibernate NoORM Team
yoann at hibernate.org


On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 15:52, Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>