[asdf-devel] GIT branching [was Re: [Bug 587889] Re: bad fasls can poison future build]

[Faré]

I agree we don't want to multiply unnecessary branches or slow down
the process with bureaucracy.

I propose we have:

1- a "release" branch, where we drop off 2.0. The head of that branch
should always be the properly tagged latest release, which will
someday be 2.1, etc. We don't (currently) plan to support multiple old
version branches, so just one branch is enough.

2- the "master" branch, where development happens. If possible one
should not push to this branch without passing proper tests, though
shit may happen when some "obviously right" change breaks things on
some unintended obscure case.

3- various transient topic branches, when applicable, for experimental
development.

Note that in my rush to release 2.0, I haven't stuck to any rule such
as "any feature should have a test". Maybe we should institute this
rule for any future feature or bug fix.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of
goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
        — Henry Ford


On 16 June 2010 20:16, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
> On 6/16/10 Jun 16 -11:13 AM, Faré wrote:
> ....
>>
>> Robert: any thoughts re: branching?
>>
> I am so far from being a git expert, that I will not venture any
> suggestions.
>
> A while ago I read the following article which proposes a branching
> policy for use with git.  It seemed, to my limited understanding,
> reasonable.  Perhaps we could adopt some variant of this policy?
>
> http://www.newartisans.com/2009/10/branch-policies-with-git.html
>
> He seems to have many more branches than I would have thought necessary.
>  I don't know that we need a "released," "stable devel," and "bleeding
> edge" as he does.
>
> Perhaps some sort of variant where we have a
>
> maint branch --- 2.0 with patches for bug fixes
>
> devel branch --- moving towards 2.1
>
> ?
>
> I'm inclined to think that we could further minimize/simplify by having
> the devel branch be master.
>
> We could also have topic branches, like the one I built in order to do
> the first TRAVERSE mods for module dependencies.
>
> Does that sound reasonable?
>
> Feel free to say "no," since I'm making this up as I go along based on
> half-remembered blog posts.
>
> best,
> r
>