[Xerte-dev] Re: GitHub and Workflows

Sat Sep 7 09:26:14 BST 2013

Maybe we have a release candidate branch? So rather than say 2.5 we move to 2.5 rc? This way 2.5 is a sort of sandpit?

On 7 Sep 2013, at 10:02, "Smith, John" <J.J.Smith at gcu.ac.uk> wrote:

> Morning all,
> 
> The way that I see it we should be doing everyday development in the develop branch; I've merged Nikodems changes to Master back into develop (SourceTree wouldn't let me commit to develop while Master was 2 ahead!!). As Julian said in an earlier email, I will either do this directly for a single change or a gitflow branch off of develop for larger changes...
> 
> Not really sure how the releases and hotfixes should work though...
> 
> I think the thing we have to take most care with (which we didn't always do on Google) was the copying of files between branches/releases. Develop files will often have 'new features' with code that might be unstable. on Google SVN there were a few situations where bugfix changes were being made to the latest revision and then the latest revision file(s) in question were just copied straight over to the v2 branch, introducing any new features into an old release. This is the thing that worries me most, especially if we are having 'Stable' zips built straight from these branches... not really sure yet though how we mitigate this although you can mark chunks in SourceTree and only push those over...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John Smith | Learning Technologist
> Room A251, Govan Mbeki Building | School of Health & Life Sciences | Glasgow Caledonian University
> Cowcaddens Road | Glasgow | G4 0BA
> ________________________________________
> From: xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Julian Tenney [Julian.Tenney at nottingham.ac.uk]
> Sent: 06 September 2013 14:37
> To: For Xerte technical developers
> Subject: [Xerte-dev] Re: GitHub and Workflows
> 
> I asked him to commit to 'develop'.
> 
> I also wondered about where the unstable build should come from. It's not master, as that would be stable, so it must be develop...?
> 
> ________________________________
> From: xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [xerte-dev-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Tom Reijnders [reijnders at tor.nl]
> Sent: 06 September 2013 14:14
> To: For Xerte technical developers
> Subject: [Xerte-dev] Re: GitHub and Workflows
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am in the process of modifying the build scripts to use github in stead of svn.
> 
> And I noticed that Nicodem committed to master yesterday, so I've got a question given the workflow mentioned below:
> 
> 1. Will we do hotfixes on released branches, i.e. on master and 2.0?
> 2. What shall we put up on the community website? What is the equivalent  to the svn trunk. master or develop, i.e. what is the basis for 'unstable'?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tom
> 
> Op 5-9-2013 15:39, Julian Tenney schreef:
> Hi,
> 
> I think we’ve got the SVN migrated over to Git Hub with all the history, branches etc, which is great. We need to have some discussion about workflow, and I want to suggest gitflow as a good workflow to adopt. Information can be found here http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ and elsewhere (here: https://www.atlassian.com/git/workflows for example).
> 
> I like it for several reasons:
> 
> 
> -          The ‘master’ branch is always production quality released code
> 
> -          Small developments (trivial) can be undertaken directly in ‘develop’
> 
> -          Larger developments can be undertaken in braches taken from ‘develop’, and then merged back into develop once complete…
> 
> -          …testing of develop can then be undertaken before we make a new release number.
> 
> See the information for more details. Does this seem sensible and agreeable to everyone?
> 
> There are two other things I’d like us to work towards, again subject to some discussion between us:
> 
> Using Tickets for Issues and New Features:
> 
> -          Using some ticketing system to record bugs to be fixed, new features to be developed, because we keep losing these;
> 
> -          Using those tickets as a way of grouping work into sprints towards a new release;
> 
> -          Could be trac, could be github, open to suggestions;
> 
> A better means of testing the software rather than the hit and hope method we currently employ:
> 
> -          Open to suggestions here?
> 
> -          Probably starts with a list of manual tests to work through?
> 
> -          Possibly includes automation (Selenium?)
> 
> -          UnitTesting probably a very long term goal, might not even be possible?
> 
> So my vision would be that we log tickets, we use that list of tickets as a big to-do list; we create a smaller current to-do list from it for the next release; we do the development a la gitflow; changes get pushed to develop and tested; new version released. It sounds good in theory at any rate, it will require a bit more discipline amongst us, but I think the benefits are worth it. I’d very much appreciate your views…
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Julian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.   Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.
> 
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xerte-dev mailing list
> Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/xerte-dev
> 
> 
> 
> --
> --
> 
> Tom Reijnders
> TOR Informatica
> Chopinlaan 27
> 5242HM Rosmalen
> Tel: 073 5226191
> Fax: 073 5226196
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.   Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.
> 
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
> 
> 
> Glasgow Caledonian University is a registered Scottish charity, number SC021474
> 
> Winner: Times Higher Education’s Widening Participation Initiative of the Year 2009 and Herald Society’s Education Initiative of the Year 2009.
> http://www.gcu.ac.uk/newsevents/news/bycategory/theuniversity/1/name,6219,en.html
> 
> Winner: Times Higher Education’s Outstanding Support for Early Career Researchers of the Year 2010, GCU as a lead with Universities Scotland partners.
> http://www.gcu.ac.uk/newsevents/news/bycategory/theuniversity/1/name,15691,en.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xerte-dev mailing list
> Xerte-dev at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/xerte-dev
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.   Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.
> 
> This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
> may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 