celix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From GitBox <...@apache.org>
Subject [GitHub] [celix] abroekhuis commented on issue #202: Updated gtest setup to either use GTest supplied Config file, or (if …
Date Mon, 20 Apr 2020 09:53:27 GMT

abroekhuis commented on issue #202:
URL: https://github.com/apache/celix/pull/202#issuecomment-616439699

   > > > > @pnoltes why do we not have "develop" set as main branch? Is there
a reason for this, or can I change it?
   > > > 
   > > > 
   > > > If a user does a clone checkout we want is to be the master. The latest
   > > > For a PR default the develop would be better. I am not sure if this is configureable..
   > > 
   > > 
   > > Is that the right way to work? Releases are easily found/downloaded via the releases
"Tab" here on github. I think that is the right place to point users to: https://github.com/apache/celix/releases
   > > Source is for developers IMO, not users.. I think it makes much more sense to
have "develop" the main branch.
   > Is it even the right way to work to use develop as main branch? We are promoting releases
through the asf mirror system (they can be downloaded from GitHub as well).
   > The source repository contains our latest code. Why not use the master branch for
our latest code then? It seems other Apache projects are using the master branch for their
latest sources as well, e.g.: [apache/spark](https://github.com/apache/spark), [apache/dubbo](https://github.com/apache/dubbo),
[apache/flink](https://github.com/apache/flink), [apache/storm](https://github.com/apache/storm),
[apache/hbase](https://github.com/apache/hbase), [apache/avro](https://github.com/apache/avro).
They all use the master branch for their latest sources and I'm sure other projects do the
   > E.g. Apache Spark also maintains `branch-*` branches for every minor release. In our
case this could be a `branch-2.1` for a (possible) follow-up 2.1.1 release. Or if 3.0.0 is
released and someone asks for a (quick) fix for 2.2.0?
   > EDIT: It seems we have a patch to #157 which fixes something for the 2.2.0 release.
Ideally this will be released as 2.2.1.
   The idea to use develop makes sense when looking at git-flow. I think this is just a matter
of how we want to work with the code.
   I like git-flow, but if there are other good models, with added benefits, let's discuss
   * Develop: work that (potentially) goes into a new version (not a bugfix)
   * Feature branches: active work
   * Release branch: once features are done and merged on develop, move to a release branch
to stabilise. New development can continue on develop
   * Bugfix branches: bugs in releases, based on the release tag the issue is found in, results
in a release, and merge to develop to get the changes in new code as well.
   * Master: stable branch with the latest release
   The actual usage of master can be discussed.. Since it doesn't add much. Tags point to
releases, github/apache has the releases in a dedicated place.
   So keeping the rest of the model, what is wrong for removing develop, and use master for
it instead?

This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:

View raw message