Hi, Ernesto,
There’s nothing preventing Young-Soo or any other committer (or non-committer, using Gerrit) from contributing to a branch named committers/eposse/<whatever>. But I don’t feel very strongly about the names of committer topic branches. It’s just that the committer ID does have meaning to the git server, so you might be limited in what you could do with committers/zeligsoft. I would like to keep the streams/* restricted to only actual release streams, though.
cW
On 19 October, 2016 at 11:23:05, Ernesto Posse (eposse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
Hi Christian.
I do agree that committers/zeligsoft looks odd, but the issue
is that we would like to merge our work (Young-Soo's and mine),
rather than have individual branches waiting for a while.
Furthermore, it's more than just one bug, and we don't want to
pollute the repo by creating several branches. That's why I
proposed those alternatives. Basically the idea is to try to
consolidate work done during the pre-0.8 release "freeze" period,
where we shouldn't merge any non 0.8 commits onto master. And how
about the other alternative: streams/0.9-prerelease?
Thanks
Hi, Ernesto,
You are correct that streams/0.9-maintenance
would be for development of 0.9.x service releases after 0.9.
If it’s just a small-ish bug that you’re working
on, I’d recommend the Papyrus convention of bugs/<number>,
which I think many Eclipse projects use. Otherwise, if it’s a
topic branch, the best is
committers/<name>/<topic>. That’s also a Papyrus
convention and in general use in other Eclipse projects.
Zeligsoft isn’t a committer, so that would
look a bit odd. I seem to recall that the Eclipse Git server
has permission rules that recognize the
“committers/<committer-id>” pattern and let the matching
committer do whatever (s)he likes in there, including
non-fast-forward pushes and other destructive actions.
We try to use only these three branching
naming patterns in the Papyrus project; there are historical
deviations from before we agreed on these.
Hello
everyone.
Young-Soo and I are
already working on some port-0.8 bugs and Simon wants to have a
branch for this. So we want to create a branch but we are not sure
what to call it. Checking the Papyrus conventions, it looks like
branch naming follows one of these forms:
bugs/<number>
committers/<name>/<topic>
streams/<major.minor>-maintenance
Are there any other
forms?
So I was wondering
if we should create
streams/0.9-maintenance
although the name
sounds misleading. My understanding is that the 'maintenance'
branches are for commits after the release. Is that
right?
How about something
like
streams/0.9-prerelease
or something like
that? The idea is that the "prerelease" branch would be rebased
onto master once 0.8 is released.
And if there are
objections to that, maybe we do one just for us (Zeligsoft),
perhaps
committers/zeligsoft/0.9
?
Thoughts?
--
Ernesto
Posse
Zeligsoft
|