Re: [yt-dev] Branches post 3.0

24 Jul 2014


      +1


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Nathan Goldbaum 
wrote:
...
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Matthew Turk 
wrote:
...
Alright, so it seems like there's a bit of a broad consensus on making
"stable" mean 3.0.  I think my reluctance may just be related to
anxiety about breakage.  But, let's push through it.
So, when we release, how about this?
yt-3.0 => deprecated, not closed.  Eventually, we will close.
yt => this will be merged *into* from yt-3.0
stable => this will be merged *into* from yt, post-3.0 merge (i.e., it
will be 3.0)
yt-2.x => this will be a new branch that starts at the current "stable"
tip.
How's that sound?
+1
http://i.imgur.com/vwMin.gif
...
...
Also late to the discussion, but have been following along.  I think I
...
Britton's suggestion here. Named yt-2 branch will allow it exist in
history
and if for some reason additional development is done on it, there is an
obvious path forward. I also agree that when yt-3.0 is released it
should be
merged into yt and stable.
Sam
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Britton Smith 
wrote:
...
Hi everyone,
I'm late to the discussion, but here's my opinion:
1. yt-x.2 should become a named branch (maybe just "yt-2").
2. yt-3.0 goes into "yt" and "stable" at the time of the release.
Further
...
development happens in "yt" just as it used to.
3. yt-3.0 the branch closes as soon as is feasible.
I don't like names like "legacy", "modern", etc that do not really
describe what it is.  yt-2.x may get one or more final point releases
and/or
bugfixes that will need a home and I think it's worthwhile that yt-2.x
...
...
some place visible.
The "stable" branch should always stand for "if you don't know what you
want, you want this" which to me is the latest trusted release, or the
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Sam Skillman 
wrote:
like
live
thing
...
...
you want people starting on.  Once yt-3.0 is released, that should be
yt-3.0.
Britton
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <
nathan12343@gmail.com>
wrote:
...
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Turk 
...
...
wrote:
...
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan Goldbaum
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Matthew Turk <
matthewturk@gmail.com>
...
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Yesterday during the doc sprint, the question of what to do about
>> branches post-3.0 came up.  Currently there are three branches,
which
>> correspond to different names on the front page of the yt
homepage.
>>
>>  * Stable => The branch into which bug fixes are merged, but not a
>> lot
>> of active development occurs.
>>  * yt => The 2.x development branch, which has slowed almost to a
>> halt
>>  * yt-3.0 => The 3.0 development branch
>>
>> It seems there is broad consensus that after the release, the
yt-3.0
>> branch would be merged into the yt branch.  (I would like to hold
off
>> on "closing" the yt-3.0 branch for a while, however.)
>
>
> Why is that?
>
Because until we get to the point that every developer has issued PRs
for all of their yt-3.0 development, we're going to have multiple
instances of "closing yt-3.0".  Because it's decentralized, we can't
force all, everywhere, to be closed.
Ah, of course that makes sense.  I guess we'll need to have two open
development branches and merge from the yt-3.0 branch into the yt
branch
regularly.
...
>>
>> But, what is
>> then to be done about the "stable" branch?  My thought was:
>>
>>  * stable => will be on 2.x for at least one release, until 3.1
>>  * yt => 3.0
>>  * yt-3.0 => we try to migrate development onto the yt branch,
which
...
>> is 3.0, but don't force yet
>
>
> I'd be -1 on having bugfixes for 3.0 on two branches.
>
>>
>>
>> The alternate idea was:
>>
>>  * stable => 3.0
>>  * yt => 3.0
>>  * yt-3.0 => closed
>>
>
> I'd prefer this, possibly with another named branch named "legacy"
> that
> contains 2.x.
>
>>
>> I think we need a longer migration time for 2.x, though.  I will
>> update YTEP-0008 with whatever we come up with, but is there a
strong
>> opinion for either of these options?  Option 1: stable stays 2.x
for
>> now, Option 2, stable becomes 3.0.
>>
>> -Matt
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org