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 CA65F431FD0 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:14:10 -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 PLekYN2Q7oaX for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pv0-f181.google.com (mail-pv0-f181.google.com [74.125.83.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF445431FB6 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pvg13 with SMTP id 13so4301253pvg.26 for ; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 00:14:03 -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=cL0xRtgTJufMjpSuzyT+DwDHmfmYZo5Rhkz6R3XIV4Y=; b=EMQ5xTgKtjcn+wYPFIIlnHxBYbB+5Ts+JSEfW5tMzTjIPM/YJxzT1eJXTF1oAW6PGY +DiEfI1XDGoImymCU20KtkOcKJ+7h2tw7fuz4Du8n9IssI8wvEV+6Cu/7Juu+7ybY0WZ Qh2vP+mYOpRtysuvaNBsDWZ7NOHI+VwYFbBak= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.56.196 with SMTP id c4mr6239330pbq.367.1309677243785; Sun, 03 Jul 2011 00:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.43.170 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Jul 2011 00:14:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <874o347fot.fsf@zancas.localnet> References: <87y60hn0mg.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87tyb5mumf.fsf@zancas.localnet> <874o347fot.fsf@zancas.localnet> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 03:14:03 -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: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 07:14:11 -0000 On 2 July 2011 13:30, David Bremner wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 11:59:04 -0400, servilio wrote: >> 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). > > We could also call the develop branch "master" and use something like > "release" for the branch that contains the release history. I like this idea, two separate long-living branches for the releases and development. What branch would be the head of the master repository in this case? I'd prefer it to be "release", as it would provide the latest stable release when cloning. Also, in the name of the people that might want to build a stable version from source, preparing the release in a separate branch might be a good idea, merging the work there back to master when finished and into release to make the release. >=C2=A0This is is technically quite close to option #2, but perhaps concept= ually > clearer (and throwing in Tom's tagging idea). > > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 0.7-pre =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A00.8-pre = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A00.9-pre > -----.+--------------.+-------------.+------------- 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 =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 =C2=A0 / > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0\ =C2=A0/ =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 0.7 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 / > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 +m------+-----+m-= -------+ release > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A00.6 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A00.7.1 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 0.8 > > One difference in this version is that a merge from master onto release > (and convenience tagging of master) occurs only when we are ready to rele= ase. I think there is no need for tags on master, "make dist" should only be run on the "release" branch, right? Servilio