Version 3 of the gitworkflows patch follows. This version of the patch attempts to incorporate all feedback received from Junio and Thomas. The main changes are: 1) Consistent use of pronouns in the imperative. 2) Reorganization to move the new text into the "MANAGING BRANCHES" section. This wasn't explicitly suggested by Junio or Thomas, but it makes sense as it clarifies that the content is not about releases in general, but how releases affect the branch structure previously described in the document. 3) Largely modified and reworded text, to conform to the new reorganization and to include feedback from Junio and Thomas. Cheers, Raman --
From: Raman Gupta <raman@rocketraman.com> The current man page does a reasonable job at describing branch management during the development process, but it does not contain any guidance as to how the branches are affected by releases. Add a basic introduction to the branch management undertaken during a git.git release, so that a reader may gain some insight into how the integration, maintenance, and topic branches are affected during the release transition, and is thus able to better design the process for their own project. Other release activities such as reviews, testing, and creating distributions are currently out of scope. --- Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt index 2b021e3..7000930 100644 --- a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt +++ b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt @@ -209,6 +209,114 @@ chance to see if their in-progress work will be compatible. `git.git` has such an official throw-away integration branch called 'pu'. +Branch management for a release +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Assuming you are using the merge approach discussed above, when you +are releasing your project you will need to do some additional branch +management work. + +Creating a release is easy. Since 'master' is tracking the commits +that should go into the next feature release, simply tag the tip of +'master' with a tag indicating the release version. + +.Release tagging +[caption="Recipe: "] +===================================== +`git tag -s -m "GIT X.Y.Z" vX.Y.Z master` +===================================== + +Similarly, for a maintenance release, 'maint' is tracking the commits +to be released. Therefore, simply replace 'master' above with +'maint'. + +Generally, you should push the new tag to a public git server (see +"DISTRIBUTED WORKFLOWS" below). This push makes the tag available to +others ...
Shouldn't that be something like "Update next to new release" instead of "maint"? Should it also have 'git checkout next' after the branch command so it's on next before merging? --
You are missing Signed-off-by: line. Here are some corrections that can be applied on top of your change. -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] Corrections to release management section in gitworkflows.txt The maintenance branch is supposed to be a strict subset of the master branch at all times. If you find out that this condition was violated after you pushed a release from the master branch, it is too late. Correcting that mistake will require redoing and retagging an already published release. In http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/132692, Junio explained that the first step is: - doubly make sure that there is nothing left in 'maint' that is not in 'master'; to avoid that mistake. Explain the exact procedure in a recipe format, and make sure it is done before the tip of the master branch is tagged. Also use --ff-only when merging master into maint. Rebuilding of 'next' must be done on 'next' branch; correct the command sequence in the recipe. Other minor clarifications in the text are also included in this change: * Clarify "building documentation" a bit; the post-update hook creates preformatted documentation pages. * The latest documentation set uses "fast-forward", not "fast forward". * Call 'next' branch an integration branch, not a "testing" branch, to be consistent with the Graduation section. Signed-off-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> --- Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt index 7000930..b1c7ef3 100644 --- a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt +++ b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt @@ -216,8 +216,19 @@ Assuming you are using the merge approach discussed above, when you are releasing your project you will need to do some additional branch management work. -Creating a release is easy. Since 'master' is tracking the ...
I noticed you removed the discussion I added about the situation in which maint will *not* be a subset of master i.e. when the user has cherry-picked commits from other branches. This type of cherry-pick is described as a valid operation, though one to generally be avoided earlier in the man page. If we tell users that the occasional cherry-pick to maint is ok, then shouldn't we explain how that affects the release process? Cheers, Raman --
It is irrelevant that you can cherry-pick to 'maint'. You can, and Junio does, cherry-pick some commits from master to maint from time to time. But even if you have such cherry-picked commits on the maintenance branch, the result, with zero or more other maintenance commits on top, is always merged back to the master branch (you can look at "gitk origin/maint origin/master" to see yourself). So when Junio tags the release from the tip of the master branch, it is a superset of the maintenace branch; it is irrelevant if maint has some commits that are cherry-picked from master. -- Nanako Shiraishi http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/ --
Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense. Ok, another dumb question: since you have now submitted a patch on top of my patch, what is the proper etiquette for proceeding? Who maintains this patch series until it is committed? Since your patch applies on top of mine I can't really make any more changes without affecting your patch right? I can't find any guidance in the SubmittingPatches document. Cheers, Raman --
I can't answer the questions about proper etiquette, but you *can* do more changes if you first apply Nanako's patch on top of your previous changes. /Björn -- Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB --
What usually happens is that we wait now. In this case we are in agreement that it is a good idea to apply both of our patches (mine was only repeating what Junio said in his comments), so if I were you, I would anticipate that Junio would apply both of them and start preparing incremental updates on top of them now, and send them when the patches appear in his 'pu' branch. Junio has gone quiet for the past few days; maybe he is too busy to read or respond to either of our patch. Instead of preparing the final text you write in the document in a patch format, it may be a better to bring up your ideas here and discuss them first. What changes do you have in mind? I think the new section now already is in a reasonable shape. -- Nanako Shiraishi http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/ --
No specific changes -- it was a hypothetical question... Cheers, Raman --
Your changes look mostly fine.
I obviously agree with the removal of "use 'branch -f' to update maint"
which I said I do not want to see in the document number of times.
There is another thing; I didn't notice it in the earlier round but the
way I actually rotate 'master', 'maint' and the 'maint-one-rev-old' is
similar to how Thomas mentioned. That is:
================================
git checkout master
git log ..maint ;# should see nothing
git tag ... ;# release task
git checkout maint
git branch maint-X.Y.Z ;# without -f so that I can catch a typo to
clobber what already exists
git merge --ff-only master
================================
My fingers are trained to type "git merge" before --ff-only was invented,
so I actually do use "merge master" without --ff-only option in the last
step, but if I see a real merge created with that command, I notice it and
treat it as a grave error, so in the Recipe we should say --ff-only.
--
At the bottom there are some more corrections on top of your combined patches. At this point I would prefer to squash everything into a single patch, but if you want to keep them separate I can come up with a commit message. All but the last change are just intended to "sound nicer". Since I'm not a native speaker either (I'm not sure any have commented in the threads so far), it would probably be nice to get some additional comments. As for the last hunk, I felt it was misleading to state 'pu' uses the same process as 'next' immediately after mentioning the "next will be rewound shortly" messages that Junio sends out. Such a message is never required for 'pu' because (as is already explained in the manpage) the "contract" is that the maintainer may rewind it anytime he likes. Apart from that, I'm not entirely happy with the way the "release" and "maint, after a feature release" sections are tangled yet. There are several forward and backward references between them. I see that you are trying to drive home the point that maint needs to be contained in master. Can't we just deal with that in the "feature release" section? -- 8< -- diff --git i/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt w/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt index 2a9329f..490346c 100644 --- i/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt +++ w/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt @@ -225,8 +225,8 @@ should first make sure that condition holds. git log master..maint ===================================== -There should be no commit listed from this command (otherwise, check -out 'master' and merge 'maint' into it). +This command should not list any commits. Otherwise, check out +'master' and merge 'maint' into it. Then you can tag the tip of 'master' with a tag indicating the release version. @@ -241,15 +241,15 @@ Similarly, for a maintenance release, 'maint' is tracking the commits to be released. Therefore, simply replace 'master' above with 'maint'. -You need to push the new tag to a public git server, -at the ...
Ok. I am submitting another patch on top of yours and Nanako's with some additional explanation and guidance, as well as some rewording and reorganization. I also corrected an error that skillzero caught earlier. Agree. I reworded the sections to untangle the information somewhat. Let me know what you think. -- 8< -- diff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt index 490346c..91c0eea 100644 --- a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt +++ b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt @@ -216,10 +216,17 @@ Assuming you are using the merge approach discussed above, when you are releasing your project you will need to do some additional branch management work. -Since 'master' is supposed to be always a superset of 'maint', you -should first make sure that condition holds. +A feature release is created from the 'master' branch, since 'master' +tracks the commits that should go into the next feature release. -.Make sure 'maint' fast-forwards to 'master' +The 'master' branch is supposed to be a superset of 'maint'. If this +condition does not hold, then 'maint' contains some commits that +are not included on 'master'. The fixes represented by those commits +will therefore not be included in your feature release. + +To verify that 'master' is indeed a superset of 'maint', use git log: + +.Verify 'master' is a superset of 'maint' [caption="Recipe: "] ===================================== git log master..maint @@ -228,8 +235,8 @@ git log master..maint This command should not list any commits. Otherwise, check out 'master' and merge 'maint' into it. -Then you can tag the tip of -'master' with a tag indicating the release version. +Now you can proceed with the creation of the feature release. Apply a +tag to the tip of 'master' indicating the release version: .Release tagging [caption="Recipe: "] @@ -237,19 +244,15 @@ Then you can tag the tip of `git tag -s -m "GIT X.Y.Z" vX.Y.Z master` ===================================== ...
Oh, my apologies. I just looked at the names and jumped to
Yes, I think that is nicer. It's no longer a repetition of what was
said above, but merely points out what could have gone wrong and where
to look for advice. The last sentence sounds a bit like "ha ha we
told you so!" though ;-)
FWIW, you can add my
Acked-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
to the final (squashed) patch.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
Junio, please also add my Acked-by: Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> My changes were intended to be squashed into the final single patch, too. -- Nanako Shiraishi http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/ --
