[yt-dev] Branches post 3.0

[Britton Smith]

+1


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140723/2f899afe/attachment.html>