[Dextrose] Defining Dextrose 4 code workflow
ruben at activitycentral.com
Thu Oct 11 09:24:16 EDT 2012
2012/10/11 Ajay Garg <ajay at activitycentral.com>:
> Having so many branches is an overkill; it is too efforts-intensive,
> error-prone and generally daunting.
It may be a bigger effort when you compare it with how we work now,
but there are good reasons for that scheme:
* A lot more provision against failure. Think of what would happen if
we ever push a rpm update that unexpectedly makes the machines stop to
boot or causes some other big trouble. I've seen that happen in
several distros, and it is a project killer. At least we need to
separate what code is golden, what is being tested by the QA team and
what is fresh from the coders.
* Most of that work is supposed to be automated or to be done by the
RM. Code going up the branches should always be fast-forward.
* The developers only work in their personal clones of the devel
branch, so from their perspective there is only *one* branch that
matters. All the rest is risk management. Of course this is a
provision for more developers working on the code in the future, so I
understand it can look overkill now that you do most of the code alone
* Some steps in the scheme are optional and can be removed, like the
master and the production branches being different. As with any
proposal this needs to be tuned up.
Activity Central: http://activitycentral.com
More information about the Dextrose