[Camps-users] 2 Hackathon branches, need 1 location

[Ethan Rowe]

Brian J. Miller wrote:
> Jon Jensen wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Brian J. Miller wrote:
>>
>>> While trolling the repo over the weekend I was going to do a bit of work 
>>> towards 4.x (or whatever you want to call it) and see where I could pick 
>>> up, unfortunately I picked the wrong branch and ended up blowing some 
>>> time on fixing unit test files (our Moose needs to be updated, badly) in 
>>> endpoint_hackathon which appears to be a good deal behind new_hackathon. 
>>> Neither branch seems overly well named (for the current situation, aka 
>>> it being nearly a year since the hackathon), so I'd like to propose 
>>> removing those in the upstream repo and creating a 4_0_0 branch or the 
>>> like. The name doesn't matter much to me, but I'd like to see us start a 
>>> convention (not standard) for using branch names with minimally a _X 
>>> sequence such that when a rebase or the like is required it is easy to 
>>> see what a branch is working off of. My understanding is that really new 
>>> work is considered 4.x, hence what I chose, but really I'd be satisfied 
>>> with devel_X, or if no one likes my other suggestion, how about just 
>>> devel?
>>>
>>> Either way I'd like to get a 4.x line of development going again and 
>>> have a branch clearly named for that development. Thoughts?
>> I'd prefer to see it simply named after development somehow, and what's 
>> wrong with a simple brian_development? If it ends up becoming the 4.0 
>> branch we can merge it then. Given the number of abortive attempts at a 
>> 4.0 branch, I'd rather not name anything that till we have code we really 
>> want to call 4.0.
>>
>> Jon
>>
> 
> To prevent time wasting trying to determine which branch someone should 
> start from, like I did over the weekend, but I guess everyone else would 
> know to check all the active branches to determine which one they like. 
> Just figured it might help, I had a brian_workup branch which I can 
> merge/rebase the work from the others into and use, but maintaining 
> multiple branches that no one knows which will become the "master" seems 
> less than desirable to me. Someone new to the project (unlikely I know) 
> wouldn't know whether 'endpoint_hackathon', 'new_hackathon' (whatever 
> that is...other than the most advanced branch), or 'brian_workup' is the 
> desired location to do active development not intended for 3.x master. 
> Perhaps I need to look into a GUI branch grapher so I can see them in a 
> way my head can wrap. Additionally I'd expect if we are going to have a 
> bunch of development branches, at some point (actually at various 
> points) I'd expect us to want to have a central place to merge to so 
> that work can be shared amongst the branches but ultimately such that 
> the history is clean (or at least that is what I understood to be the 
> general attitude).

Ultimately, I would think we would be best-served by establishing a
mirror on Github, thus enabling branching to happen at the fork level
without having to clutter the primary repository with varying lines of
development.

-- 
Ethan Rowe
End Point Corporation
ethan at endpoint.com