Next focus: PROCESS
foobar
foo at bar.com
Fri Dec 21 13:09:18 PST 2012
On Friday, 21 December 2012 at 18:34:12 UTC, Rob T wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 December 2012 at 23:43:12 UTC, Joseph Cassman
> wrote:
>> Just some food for thought.
>>
>> In the section about the "Branching model", the wiki currently
>> has a staging branch in addition to the master branch. From
>> what I understand, the idea seems to be to vet a release on
>> staging until it is considered production level and then
>> marked as the release.
>>
>> Another idea could be to keep the quality of the master branch
>> at a high level so as to be able to branch into a release at
>> any time, directly from master. Before feature branches are
>> merged back into master, their quality is vetted so the
>> quality of master is maintained.
>>
>> This idea seems similar to what is used for the vibe.d project
>> (http://vibed.org/temp/branch-model-small.png). My apologies
>> if I misunderstood their process.
>>
>> It looks like Xamarin has been using this process for a while
>> and it seems to be working for them.
>> http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2011/Oct-14.html
>>
>> Joseph
>
> Doesn't that just turn master into staging, and turn the
> feature branches into a diluted and distributed version of
> master?
>
> If there's no common development branch to work with that
> integrates the most current features together, then how will
> such a thing ever be properly tested before going into a high
> quality common branch?
>
> We also need the ability to stop brand new poorly tested
> features from making their way into a release, so at some point
> a common pre-release branch needs to be frozen from receiving
> any new features so that it can be honed into a high quality
> product. If you use the master branch for such a thing, then no
> new features can go into it, so with master frozen, what common
> branch is available for the devs to merge their new work into?
>
> --rt
Precisely.
I think people just don't understand the purpose of these
additional branches. The point being - integration.
The general flow of events should be:
1. Developer has cool idea/feature which he explores on a
separate private "feature branch"
2. During development of the feature the developer can optionally
collaborate with other developers. This can be done either by
pulling from other developers' repositories directly or by
pushing to a branch on github. Either way, this is an ad hoc "my
new feature" branch.
3. First level of integration - feature is complete and is merged
into official first level of integration - the "dev" branch
(consensus was to use master for that)
4. Feature can than be further refined and _integration bugs_ can
be fixed by the general dev team.
5. When the "dev" branch is considered stable enough by the team
(exact criteria to be defined later), the changes are merged to
the _2nd level of integration_ - the "staging" branch. This
allows for a wider audience to test and provide real-world
feedback.
6. when the 2nd level of integration is complete, the changes are
stable enough to be released and the included features finalized.
Since git provides each developer with their own private copy of
the entire repository there is *no need* to define any official
processes prior to initial integration. The developers are free
to collaborate by using ad hoc branches. The only common sense
recommendation I'd give (again, NOT part of the _official
process_) is to use meaningful branch names if they are meant to
be shared with other people.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list