[Pulp-list] [devel] 2.5.x branches

[Ivan Necas]

----- Original Message -----
> Hi Pulp developers! I have just created our 2.5.x branches for us to
> work in. Below, I will list each of our branches of importance, and what
> they are for. Feel free to ask questions if you need clarification!
> 
> 2.4-testing
> This branch is currently where all 2.4.1 bugs should be branched from
> and merged into. Currently there are only two outstanding bugs for this
> release. After you merge into this branch, you must merge it all the way
> forward. For this branch, this is a lot of merging. You must merge
> 2.4-testing into 2.4-dev. Then you must merge 2.4-dev into 2.5-testing.
> Then you must merge 2.5-testing into 2.5-dev. Then you must merge
> 2.5-dev into master. This will prevent us from making a 2.4.1 release
> with a bug fix that is not present in 2.5.0 or master. Got it? ☺

This sound like a lot of merging. 

> 
> 2.4-dev
> This branch is still ongoing for our 2.4.z (where z > 2) release stream.
> Any bugs you work on that are for a 2.4.z (z > 2) release should branch
> from here, and merge into here. Again, you must merge this forward to
> all future releases. Merge 2.4-dev into 2.5-testing. Then you must merge
> 2.5-testing into 2.5-dev. Then you must merge 2.5-dev into master.
> 
> 2.5-testing
> This branch is where all 2.5.0 bugs should be branched from and merged
> into. Pay attention to the target release on the bugs you are working
> on. Today, many of them will be moved to 2.5.1. Those should not be
> merged into here. You must merge forward these commits to all future
> releases. Merge 2.5-testing into 2.5-dev. Then you must merge 2.5-dev
> into master.
> 
> 2.5-dev
> This branch is where all 2.5.z (z > 0) bugs should be branch from and
> merged into. All commits on this branch must be merged forward to master.

How one figures out what should go to the master and what to 2.5?

> 
> master
> This branch is for new feature development. Any work you are doing that
> adds a new feature or changes an API must be branched from and merged
> into master.

Any reason why keeping that many branches in place? I'm might miss something,
but creating a branch per release, once the release is more or less feature
complete and cherry-picking additional fixes to it seem more natural to me.

What about the other cases, where something get's fixed in 2.5-dev first
and additionally decided it should go back to 2.4-testing as well.

I'm of course not core Pulp developer, but I think having more simpler branching
schema makes it easier for semi-end users to figure out what's going on.

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-list mailing list
> Pulp-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list