[Dextrose] Defining Dextrose 4 code workflow

[Ruben Rodríguez]

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.

-- 
Rubén Rodríguez
CTO
Activity Central: http://activitycentral.com

Facebook: https://activitycentral.com/facebook
Google+: https://activitycentral.com/googleplus
Twitter: https://activitycentral.com/twitter