From: Bastien <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: [DEV] New git workflow Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 01:51:54 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) Hi all, our current git workflow is pretty well summarised by Achim -- we have two main branches, master and maint, and we (try to) follow these rules: If it's a bugfix for something broken in a release version, commit to maint and merge maint back into master. If implementing a new feature or fixing something not yet released, commit to master. On top of that, some local development happens in dedicated branches. The role of master is clear: it contains latest mature developments, which are either (1) bugfixes merged from maint, (2) features merged from dedicated branches or (3) features developed in master directly. The role of maint is less clear: it is both a "hotfix" branch and a release branch for bugfix releases. The reason for this branch was first that we need to keep a production-like version of Org in sync with Emacs. 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. So I suggest to use three branches with these rules: - 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. - hotfix-7.XX.XX: the transient branch for hotfixes. Severe bugs are fixed there first, then merged back to maint when this makes sense. The branch is created when we need it and deleted when we don't need it anymore. This workflow looks clearer to me. 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. 2) the master branch *is* the development branch: yes, pretty unusual. At least as unusual as not having two mailing lists, one for users and one for devs. But I want to stick to what makes this list a great place: regular users are invited to live on the bleeding edge and to contribute patches on the "development" branch, the one they will clone first. So, what's next? I will merge 7.8.06 into Emacs. Nothing should be committed to maint anymore before the next release. Important bug fixes for 7.8.06 all go to a new branch hotfix-7.8.06. Usual development goes to master, from where we regularily merge the hotfix branch. We'll get rid of the hotfix branch when releasing 7.8.07 or 7.9. ... Finally, two positive things from the mess I put and went through: I learned more about git, and I experienced once again how patient and helpful people can be on this list. Thanks to all again! -- Bastien
next reply other threads:[~2012-03-20 0:50 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-03-20 0:51 Bastien [this message] 2012-03-20 7:03 ` Achim Gratz 2012-03-20 7:24 ` Achim Gratz 2012-03-20 10:40 ` Bastien 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
Reply instructions: 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: https://www.orgmode.org/ * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [DEV] New git workflow' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git 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).