From: Bastien <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>
Subject: Re: [DEV] New git workflow
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:40:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87fwd3ycsu.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of "Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:03:13 +0100")
Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:
> Bastien <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> The main problem I see With this workflow is that releases are made
>> from two different branches: bugfix releases are made from maint and
>> major releases are made from master. This doesn't look right to me.
> That ain't necessarily so. IMHO, the release always has to be done from
> maint (that's the whole purpose of it), preceded by a merge from master
> if and only if a major release is done.
Agreed. What I want on top of this is a to have a branch where *every*
commit corresponds to a single release.
>> - master: the main persistent branch. This is were regular development
>> goes. This branch is merged back to the maint branch when we release
>> a new major version. No release happens directly from this branch.
>> - maint: the "production" persistent branch. This branch is dedicated
>> to the release process: when hot fixes are hot enough, we merge the
>> hotfix branch to the maint branch and release a bugfix release. When
>> the master branch (where hot fixes are also merged to) is mature and
>> well tested, we merge master into maint and release a major version.
> So far no deviation from today.
There is one important deviation: so far we could commit changes to
maint and _not_ make a release. From now on, every commit to maint
should correspond to a release.
> All things considered, the hotfix branch and maint
> should almost always point to the same commit. In other words, all
> hotfix branches should merge into maint first and then maint back into
No. All hotfix branches should merge into master regularily. When
hotfix contains enough fixes for a bugfix release, then we merge it to
maint, and process with release.
My main goal is this: have a branch with one commit = one release.
>> Here are the advantages I see:
>> 1) *all releases happen on the same branch* (the maint branch): it is
>> easier to keep this branch in sync with Emacs and we can also add
>> git hooks to automate the release process.
> See above, that was always how it was supposed to work.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-20 10:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-20 0:51 [DEV] New git workflow Bastien
2012-03-20 7:03 ` Achim Gratz
2012-03-20 7:24 ` Achim Gratz
2012-03-20 10:40 ` Bastien [this message]
2012-03-20 19:20 ` Achim Gratz
2012-03-21 0:02 ` Bastien
2012-03-21 0:23 ` Bastien
2012-03-20 10:47 ` Bastien
2012-03-20 22:35 ` Simon Thum
2012-03-20 22:27 ` Achim Gratz
2012-03-21 8:46 ` Simon Thum
2012-03-21 9:01 ` Achim Gratz
2012-03-21 22:38 ` Simon Thum
2012-03-24 11:05 ` Daniel Dehennin
2012-03-24 20:08 ` Simon Thum
2012-03-24 19:29 ` Nick Dokos
2012-04-01 9:26 ` Simon Thum
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).