From: Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
Marc Sune <marc.sune@bisdn.de>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] development/integration branch?
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:00:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141022070058.GA6051@mhcomputing.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3074245.k7N1CrtUjD@xps13>
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:28:47AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> But I care about the message brought by such change. It would mean that
> we can break the development branch and that most of developers don't test
> it nor base their patches on the latest commit. It's all about simple rules
> and messages.
I have seen two common ways to do this which I think are about equal.
1) master is latest release in production, develop branch is tip
2) master is tip, production releases live in branches / tags
A lot of non-free stuff uses (1) along with some open source.
So the DPDK is using model (2), which is pretty common for open source.
What I think git in general and DPDK in particular are missing is, they have a
tradition tags for releases, however I think this is broken because you can't
easily append more stuff to tages.
I really prefer putting my releases on actual branches to make it as easy as
possible for users / maintenance programmers to follow and/or add stuff to a
codeline. For example I'd like a 1.7.X branch I could follow for my app until
1.8.X is ready.
Having a stable branch would also make stuff easier for guys like Marc who
want to follow the known-stable release in an easy way without horsing around
with "the latest tag of the day" all the time.
Perhaps this is an OK option?
Matthew.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-22 6:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-21 8:22 Marc Sune
2014-10-21 8:36 ` Richardson, Bruce
2014-10-21 8:46 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-10-21 9:14 ` Marc Sune
2014-10-21 9:28 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-10-21 9:38 ` Marc Sune
2014-10-21 13:50 ` Neil Horman
2014-10-22 7:00 ` Matthew Hall [this message]
2014-10-22 13:43 ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-10-22 15:54 ` Matthew Hall
2014-10-21 13:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-10-23 9:19 ` Marc Sune
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
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20141022070058.GA6051@mhcomputing.net \
--to=mhall@mhcomputing.net \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=marc.sune@bisdn.de \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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 NNTP newsgroup(s).