[Kde-scm-interest] git workflow draft

[Jeremy Whiting]

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Aaron J. Seigo <aseigo at kde.org> wrote:

> hi all....
>
> so after the meeting on Sunday, here is where we are in terms of a draft
> workflow. more complete meeting minutes can be seen here:
>
>        http://titanpad.com/SnJwFW2iXL
>
> the goal of the meeting was to come up with a draft of a mutually agreeable
> git workflow for kdelibs and kde-runtime. the hope is that this can become
> a
> template for the rest of the SC modules (kde-workspace will follow the
> kdelibs
> workflow, for instance), as well as as many other KDE projects as possible.
> this is to help ensure a general continuity to how we work across KDE.
>
> Topic Branches
> =============
>
> All new development should happen in a branch. Git makes branches very
> cheap
> and they can be local or remote. There are few if any really good reasons
> not
> to use branches, so development directly in master should be generally
> discouraged.
>
> Topic / feature branches should be public and pushed to the main repository
> where they are easy for others to find and collaborate on. They should
> start
> as a branch off of master. We do not want git to become, even
> unintentionally,
> a road to segregated, private development at the expense of our
> collaboration
> as a community. With public branches in a shared repository, even a git
> pull
> will inform of new development that is happening. Git then becomes an
> important piece of our development communication with each other: a new
> branch
> means new activity.
>
> Only features / topics that are intended from the state to be merged with
> master should end up in the main repository, however. More experimental
> and/or
> long term efforts (an example presented was the kconfig refactor leading up
> to
> 4.0) should start in a personal clone, and when/if the work crosses the
> border
> into "this is realistically going to be merged with master" it can be moved
> into a branch in the main repository.
>
> After merge with master, topic branches should be deleted from the main
> repository.
>
> Branch Naming: if a branch is specific to a subproject, e.g. solid, specify
> it
> in the branch name such as "solid/udevbackend". This will make it easier to
> use git branch listings (along with grep, etc) to pick out branches of
> interest based on the project in question. If there is not a sepcific
> subproject that it belongs to, give it a good descriptive name such as
> "pluggable-kconfig".
>
> No branches should be prefixed with "KDE"; we consider that a reserved
> name.
> Nor topic should branches be numeric in nature (such as a version number)
> as
> those are reserved for actual release branches. (Sys admin at the meeting
> indicated that it is likely they will eventually put a push hook in place
> that
> prevents such "incorrectly" named branches.)
>

Was this decided upon at some point?  I got conflicting stories from
sysadmin and other developers.  Yesterday after migrating kdeaccessibility
to git I was asked by a sysadmin to rename the X.Y branches to KDE/X.Y  I
think concensus and consistency are important here.  Was there a decision
that the official branches should be named X.Y?  Is that documented
somewhere (I spent some time looking, but didn't find it).  If not we should
reach concensus and also fix the repositories that are not following this
standard sooner than later imo.  This will help greatly in the long run.

Thoughts, opinions, etc.
Jeremy


>
> Branch names should not include the committer name as we have git log and
> it
> will help discourage "ego coding" where one person has overt "ownership" of
> the branch. This is still a team effort after all :)
>
> "Dead" branches: on every maor every release, a check will be done on
> branches
> in the main repository. Any branches that have not seen any work done on
> them
> in the last <TBD: 12? 18?> months  will be deleted. Deleted branches are
> backed up automatically on git.kde.org, so work will be retrievable. This
> will
> keep our branch count sane over the years.
>
> Open questions / topics for further discovery:
>
>        * documenting best practices for keeping a topic branch in sync with
> master, keeping in mind that later a merge from the topic branch to master
> needs to be done and the git history sould be kept as clean as possible
>
>        * process for announcing that a branch is ready to be merged so as
> to
> gather feedback (particularly important for the shared "crown jewels" in
> kdelibs); this is something like a "kdereview 2.0" though on the level of
> feature branches.
>
>        * topic branches and our release cycle: is it acceptable to create a
> new
> topic branch even when we are in feature freeze?
>
>        * more advanced workflows involving, e.g., an integration branch is
> not
> something we seem equipped for right now as it brings overhead and
> additional
> coordination with it. Perhaps in the future though ....
>
>        * best practice "recipes" for merging, e.g. using "git merge --log"
>
> Bugfixes
> =======
> The big question here was forward-porting vs. backporting. Backporting has
> the
> advantage that it is what we do currently and people run and test master
> more.
> Forward-porting ensures that all bug fixes in the stable release branch end
> up
> in the master branch and it is easier to test against a branch with fewer
> changes (e.g. new features). It will take discipline either way: two bug
> fixes
> we found in 4.6 that weren't in master.
>
> Merge is prefered over cherry-pick: it cleans up the git history a bit;
> each
> commit is only there once instead of the cloned commits created by cherry-
> pick.
>
> The two methods (forward vs backward ports) are not mutually exclusive: on
> the
> contrary, backporting commits that made it into master can make it easier
> for
> the next person who wants to merge the stable branch into master.
>
> Generally, we will encourage people to develop and test bug fixes against
> the
> stable branch and forward port them by way of a merge into master. Due to
> the
> obvious cases for exceptions, this will not be a "hard and fast" rule.
>
> Documenting best practices considerations
> ==================================
>
> There is a lot we need to document. The above needs to be refined, fleshed
> out
> and turned into point-by-point documentation. There are many pages on
> Techbase
> that need updating as a result of moving from svn to git as well. I'll
> organize and hopefully also host a docu day on irc for this specifically
> once
> the dust settles a bit more.
>
>
> We'll need to have further discussion on these topics and your feedback is
> welcome. Questions as well as answers are valuable, as both will help
> define
> what needs to be further defined and documented.
>
> --
> Aaron J. Seigo
> humru othro a kohnu se
> GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
>
> KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-scm-interest/attachments/20110822/6173ca3e/attachment.html>