From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2678E431FD0 for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 08:59:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HDQxbtTlQ+Hh for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 08:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f53.google.com (mail-pz0-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4280431FB6 for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 08:59:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6so1913735pzk.26 for ; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:59:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CRingyQsCxb3mJeXkhKbWtmQ+OlLXDdF1aEf+IGqRps=; b=Y4zrZJfnQhYrkzrwoy1nUk5gqzPyA1kbknI8jGVOCAJ/eztz9qeeEO3+gV3a22ueBM 13jQKM2+KKbRpgS3d+PsnG0BvfIE2RKK6g3I+AkiJaI7pPAiFxRQo5aqbcYGV76ZH7wc D+9TTDoRl4PLcsHtOJ7eHhDRQmRdMtaxrt744= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.25.165 with SMTP id d5mr4899994pbg.32.1309622344750; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 08:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.56.103 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 08:59:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87tyb5mumf.fsf@zancas.localnet> References: <87y60hn0mg.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87tyb5mumf.fsf@zancas.localnet> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 11:59:04 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: branchs and tags and merges oh my! From: servilio To: David Bremner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 15:59:07 -0000 On 1 July 2011 19:47, David Bremner wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:48:24 -0700, Keith Packard wro= te: >> > 2) merge master onto the release branch >> >> This makes doing 'bug fix' stuff on top of 0.6 a bit more challenging. > > Can you elaborate? Naively it seems like one ends up with the same kind > of spur of history off of the 0.6 tag in both cases. > > ----.--------------master > =C2=A0 =C2=A0\ > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ---- 0.6 ---- bugfix > > versus > > -----.----------. > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0\ =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0\ > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ---- 0.6--------master > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 \ > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0----- bugfix > >> As an alternative, you probably should have simply put non-release >> patches on a separate 'feature branch' (probably residing in the feature >> author's repository) which would then be merged onto master post-0.6 > > Yes, that is certainly nice from a git history point of view. On the > other hand the point of separating the roles of feature merger from > release mechanic was to allow Carl more time to work on merging features > into master, and I'm not sure how turning master over to the release > manager helps that. What about having Carl do the merging of features into a develop branch[1], then the release manager prepares a release in a release branch, merging back and tagging into master when release is ready? A similar workflow could be followed for bugfix releases (branch to bugfix/release branch, prepare, merge back to master, tag). This workflow would keep a nice useful history while allowing even more independence between the feature merging and release process, what do you think? Servilio [1] Or next, or whatever other name is better understood by the community.