[hibernate-dev] ORM 6 branch

Steve Ebersole steve at hibernate.org
Tue Nov 27 10:02:55 EST 2018

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

More information about the hibernate-dev mailing list