[hibernate-dev] ORM 6 branch

[Steve Ebersole]

Then Chris and Andrea might as well push it to upstream as soon as they are
done integrating the latest changes from master.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:01 AM Yoann Rodiere <yoann at hibernate.org> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>