[Nfd-dev] Small branching policy change for NFD and ndn-cxx (proposal)

[Davide Pesavento]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Alex Afanasyev
<alexander.afanasyev at ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> On Jul 16, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Davide Pesavento <davide.pesavento at lip6.fr> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Alex Afanasyev
>> <alexander.afanasyev at ucla.edu> wrote:
>>> My understanding is slightly different, but in any case it aligns with your
>>> concern about the feature branches.  I don't think that the described git
>>> flow requires you to use feature branches for everything.  It allows you to
>>> do this, but doesn't mandate (I have used it a few times before).  Given
>>> that we also have code review system in place, it in most cases replaces
>>> this process ( "feature branch" is basically a series of patch sets).
>>
>> Are you talking about remote (i.e. server-side) feature branches?
>
> If needed, either can be used.  But only if really needed.
>

Well, as far as local feature branches are concerned, I use them all
the time and then push to refs/for/master. I don't think we should
mandate how developers are supposed to work locally on their machines,
as long as they push to master or release-N for review...

>>>
>>> Also, as I understand the flow, the release-* branches are temporary and
>>> they go away as soon as the release is finalized and tagged.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, or you can keep them in order to make hotfix releases if needed,
>> in which case the "release" branch would be unnecessary. I don't have
>> a strong opinion either way.
>>
>>> So, the short list of proposed updates:
>>>
>>> - we will create "release-<version>" branch for preparation for <version>
>>> release.  When the release is finalized, we tag the release and remove the
>>> branch.
>>
>> Remember to merge back to master after tagging.
>>
>>>
>>> - we will have "release" branch that will track the latest release (release
>>> = latest release tag)
>>>
>>
>> Yes or, as I said, keep the various release-N branches. But probably a
>> single branch generates less noise and less confusion...?
>>
>> Another question is: what is the default branch that gets checked out
>> when cloning? master or release?
>
> This will remain "master" (where most development happens).
>
>>> - for problems discovered for the released <version>, we can use
>>> "hotfix-<version>+" branch, which is merged back to "master" and "release"
>>> branches, and then tagged as then next minor release
>>>
>>
>> Just call it "release-X.1", "release-X.2", etc... less confusion in my opinion.
>
> I already create release-0.2.0 this time.  Next time we could remove the last zero.

Ah no sorry, what I meant was to call it "release-<something>" rather
than "hotfix-<something>". The final .0 is fine, I don't care.

Thanks,
Davide