| Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] Feature freeze and git repo |
Hi Camille,
Thanks for the information, that explains why I didn’t find any official wiki on the subject.
Benoit,
De : papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de LETAVERNIER Camille
Envoyé : mercredi 25 mai 2016 13:36
À : papyrus-rt developer discussions <papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : [PROVENANCE INTERNET] Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] Feature freeze and git repo
Hi Benoit,
This is a restriction we have specifically requested for the Papyrus GIT Repository, because we had a lot of mistakes done by committers, causing a lot of mess and confusion
This is not a generic Eclipse restriction (Although Papyrus is not the only project doing this)
Camille
De : papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de MAGGI Benoit
Envoyé : mercredi 25 mai 2016 13:32
À : papyrus-rt developer discussions <papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : [PROVENANCE INTERNET] Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] Feature freeze and git repo
Hi,
I fear you won’t be able to delete/rename this branch.
There seems to be some eclipse restriction to avoid messing up the repositories
You can check some of the bugs Git/Community [1] [2]
I didn’t found the official documentation, but from my experience on Papyrus Repository, normal committers (I J) can only :
- create branches without restriction
- delete/rename branches following the pattern bugs/* or committers/*
For other manipulation you should open a community bug with a +1 from project leader.
Regards,
Benoit
Ps: @Christian : In the specific eclipse context you can imagine having only branch following the release train (luna,mars,neon,oxygen…) and put the Head to the latest name. But it would be very hard to understand that for non-eclipse newcomers.
1 : https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?component=Git&list_id=14472810&product=Community
2 : https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=362363
De : papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Christian Damus
Envoyé : mardi 24 mai 2016 21:33
À : papyrus-rt developer discussions <papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] Feature freeze and git repo_______________________________________________
Hi, Ernesto,
There has been much discussion about the nature of the maintenance releases at the Simultaneous Release / Planning Council level, to the point where I think there was general agreement that the term “maintenance” was deprecated and the X.1, X.2, etc. naming scheme was adopted for the Simultaneous Release. So, yeah, I suppose we shouldn’t use the “maintenance” term in our branch name any more, either.
Unfortunately, we already had a branch named “neon.” Perhaps “neon.x” would clearly indicate that it’s the continuation of the neon development stream?
Deleting a remote branch would have to be done on the command-line using the "git branch -d -r" command. I think any committer should have permission to do that, but I’m not sure. You can also rename it, which might be safer anyways, with "git branch -m”. But do ask on the list before doing that in case anybody has already based local branches on it.
I’ve never done a git workflow that involves renaming master to another name. That seems very odd to me. Presumably this involves also renaming some other branch as “master" because, of course, we expect always to have a master. I would find it very unsettling that the nature of my master branch changes drastically when I do a pull. It is generally bad form to rename any heads in the shared repo that clones are referencing as upstreams because it results in surprising pulls with outcomes (merges or rebases) that developers have little chance of understanding.
HTH,
Christian
On 24 May, 2016 at 15:10:00, Ernesto Posse (eposse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
Hi Christian. I see. Yes, it would be ambiguous. I'm open to other names, but is "1.0-maintenance" the right name? To me that suggests bug fixes, while this new branch is intended for new features and functionality, as discussed, and as Camille explained in this thread, once there is a release, 'master' is renamed 'maintenance' and this temporary branch is rebased. So I created the branch with this name rather than "maintenance" to be in line with that.
Also, there is a technical problem: I don't know how to delete branches on Gerrit. The Gerrit dashboard shows me only a "Create branch" button, and nothing else, no "Rename" or "Delete" branch.
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:45 PM Christian Damus <give.a.damus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi, Ernesto,
The name “1.0.1” would be confused with the eventual tag of that name, so that a checkout command would be ambiguous.
Could we name it “1.0-maintenance”, instead, as is commonly done in Eclipse Modeling Projects (at least UML2 and Papyrus)?
Thanks,
Christian
On 24 May, 2016 at 11:08:50, Céline JANSSENS (celine.janssens@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
Hello Ernesto,
Good Idea, i'm going to create a specific Job gerrit for this Branch !
Regards
CélineLe 24/05/2016 à 16:57, Ernesto Posse a écrit :
Hello. I didn't hear from anyone else, so I created a new branch called "1.0.1".
This branch is intended to be temporary. The idea is that before release, commits on master should be bug fixes, and anything that is a new feature should go on this 1.0.1 branch.
On release we'll rename "master" as "maintenance" or "release", and we'll rebase "1.0.1".
Sounds good?
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:02 AM LETAVERNIER Camille <Camille.LETAVERNIER@xxxxxx> wrote:
Ø While it's true that between feature freeze and release we should focus on testing and fixing bugs, I think having a branch that fully builds new features could be helpful and simplify the integration of new features once we release. I'm not sure I like having pending changes hanging on Gerrit particularly in the case where there is more than one Gerrit on top of another, which become a pain to merge later on. And I also prefer having few items in my Gerrit dashboard ;)
I agree; that’s exactly why we wanted to experiment this for the Neon/Oxygen transition. As it happens, the Oxygen branch has not been used yet, but at least we have a place where new features can be integrated, built and tested if we ever need it
Ø In fact, the "anti-gitflow" approach advocated in [2] seems to be closer to what you describe:
Much closer indeed, except for the “Release” part of this article: our Maintenance branches have to evolve in parallel to the master branch, so they remain forever, and we indeed have duplicate (“cherry picks”) commits between Maintenance and Master branches. We can’t merge these branches, because versions evolve independently (e.g. when Mars moves from 1.1.0 to 1.1.1, Neon M1 goes from 1.1.0 to 1.2.0. Also, some fixes involve breaking APIs, so we usually implement a quick workaround for the maintenance branch, and a proper, larger fix on master). So we actually need maintenance branches that remain forever.
Regards,
Camille
De : papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Ernesto Posse
Envoyé : mardi 17 mai 2016 21:31
À : papyrus-rt developer discussions <papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>Objet : Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] Feature freeze and git repo
I like the idea of a temporary branch for new features, a little bit like in the gitflow model [1], although that seems to use a merge approach rather than a rebase approach like us, and it has its drawbacks [2].
In fact, the "anti-gitflow" approach advocated in [2] seems to be closer to what you describe: consistent with the goal of keeping a linear history, making other branches temporary, creating a branch for the release (i.e. the "maintenance" branch). That sounds good to me.
While it's true that between feature freeze and release we should focus on testing and fixing bugs, I think having a branch that fully builds new features could be helpful and simplify the integration of new features once we release. I'm not sure I like having pending changes hanging on Gerrit particularly in the case where there is more than one Gerrit on top of another, which become a pain to merge later on. And I also prefer having few items in my Gerrit dashboard ;)
So if we are voting, I'd vote for having a feature branch, renaming 'master' to 'maintenance' after release and rebasing the feature branch.
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:20 AM LETAVERNIER Camille <Camille.LETAVERNIER@xxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
In Papyrus, we don’t switch branches until the final release (Which is RC4 for us). Any new feature is postponed (e.g. pending on Gerrit) until the release is complete. This is mainly to avoid reconfiguring the build & scripts due to switching branches.
We’re however experimenting a new approach this year: we’ve created a new branch after Feature Freeze (M7), for the next release. This is a temporary branch, that will be rebased to master after the final release (RC4). Once the branch is rebased, the current master will be renamed to maintenance, and the rebased branch will become the new master
The point with this approach is to be able to push new features on a dedicated branch, where we can have complete builds/validation, and we can merge several features on the same branch to identify conflicts early, without changing the current structure for the master branch (Same branch name, same build configuration...)
We don’t have too many contributions on this new branch, so it’s hard to tell whether it was useful at all. In general, at this time, we should be focusing on bug fixes anyway; not on features for the next yearly release. So, I’d say, new branches can wait :) but it really depends on your plans and contributions
Regards,
Camille
De : papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Ernesto Posse
Envoyé : mardi 17 mai 2016 02:32
À : papyrus-rt developer discussions <papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : [papyrus-rt-dev] Feature freeze and git repo
Hello everyone.
Since we have feature freeze this Friday, I was wondering how are we going to deal with it in the git repo. Are we going to create a "1.0.0" branch and continue 1.0.1 development on master, or are we going to create a "1.0.1" branch and let master be 1.0.0 with only bug fixes committed on it, or something else? What does Papyrus do?
--
Ernesto Posse
Zeligsoft
_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev
_______________________________________________papyrus-rt-dev mailing listpapyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visithttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev
--
Céline JANSSENS
Software Engineer
+33 (0)2 44 47 23 23
Mail : cej@xxxxxxxxxxx
6 rue Léonard De Vinci - BP 0119 - 53001 LAVAL Cedex - FRANCE
www.all4tec.net
_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev