[yt-dev] Branches post 3.0

Matthew Turk matthewturk at gmail.com
Wed Jul 23 14:57:09 PDT 2014


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?

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Sam Skillman <samskillman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Also late to the discussion, but have been following along.  I think I like
> 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 <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
> 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 live
>> 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 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 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan Goldbaum
>>>> <nathan12343 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at 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 at lists.spacepope.org
>>>> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > yt-dev mailing list
>>>> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>>> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>> >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>



More information about the yt-dev mailing list