[yt-dev] Branches post 3.0

[Nathan Goldbaum]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> 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


>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140723/cfdba003/attachment.html>