kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Maciej Sumiński <maciej.suminski@xxxxxxx>]

At the moment the master branch contains all commits from 5.1 and a few
more. It might be the right moment to drop 5.1 branch.

Cheers,
Orson

On 07/20/2018 11:14 AM, Maciej Sumiński wrote:
> We already have slightly diverged the branches, I think it shows that it
> is hard to maintain two branches with cherry-picking. Details below:
> 
> Commits present in master, but not in 5.1:
> commit c585964da98269db2cabf06daafb0b11cae3a4ec
>     fix coding style issues.
> 
> commit 840ad7f68053d000dc6d46661d05d9d4be074704
>     Add SH_ARC collisions
> 
> commit 01c5bdfb8f49a84f2e5fae5c7fc5729a47c8ef0f
>     Fix bug with duplicate columns in Edit Symbol Fields.
> 
> 
> Commits present in 5.1, but not in master:
> commit 42deb68575a5a415b0970be4a89676f1986fa196
>     Eeschema: minor fix in edit label dialog (incorrect unit value )
> 
> On 07/19/2018 07:08 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> This was pretty much how I saw the development working which is why I
>> created a separate 5.1 branch.  However, if we are not going to allow
>> new features to be merged into the master branch (6.0-dev) (and it seems
>> that is the consensus) then I propose that we do all of the 5.1
>> development in the master branch.  I would rather not delete the 5.1
>> branch because the tags and version strings are already in place and
>> reverting all the changes thus far would be painful.  Assuming 5.1 and
>> master are currently the same, we can either merge from master to 5.1 as
>> we go or one big merge when we are ready to start creating 5.1 release
>> candidates.  I would prefer that we merge as we go which will keep the
>> two branches synced an minimize issues.  Is this acceptable to everyone?
>>
>> On 7/19/2018 12:15 PM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> for me as a person which doesn't do any active source code development
>>> on KiCad it looks like there is some confusion in the wild what will or
>>> should happen in which branch.
>>>
>>> Sorry if I haven't get it until now, what are the goals of the branch
>>> 5.1 the project wanted to archive?
>>>
>>> And what is 6.0, master or $(what else) are for?
>>>
>>> If these questions can be answered it will be much more clear what
>>> development should happen in which branch and what should be merged into
>>> which other branch.
>>>
>>> KiCad has now more active developers than ever I think, but I can't
>>> really see a branch model that is fitting the current and future
>>> situations. Out there are various branching models and the KiCad project
>>> needs to decide which will work best for the project. The classical
>>> master plus release branches isn't working great anymore if you want to
>>> work on multiple parts in parallel.
>>>
>>> I suggest to have a look at the following website.
>>>
>>> https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
>>>
>>> It describes what options are count and how a workflow would look like,
>>> I think it would be also usable for KiCad (not in a full blown version).
>>>
>>> In the long term you wont do cherry-picking for the plain development as
>>> this wont work smoothly at one point anymore (as Wayne already
>>> mentioned). Single cherry-picking is fine, but in the end you will come
>>> to merge commits as you mostly want to have all the new code in a later
>>> release. Every upstream project I know is working this way.
>>>
>>> Backporting security or hot fixes are slightly different and require
>>> often cherry-picking with small or much modifications as you wont
>>> introduce new features into old code by merges. But also this can be
>>> done in a local feature branch which gets merged then into the stable
>>> release branch. Depends mostly on the amount of the needed backport.
>>>
>>> So to call it again, what is the branch 5.1 intended for? Only for the
>>> GTK+3 fixes? If yes it's fine to do it here and merged these changes
>>> (which will be needed also in the current ongoing nightly development)
>>> into master, develop, 6.0 or what ever named branch. Just renaming
>>> master into something different without a common and required workflow
>>> is nothing, then it's really just another name.
>>>
>>> So I would propose the following as there are already some branches out
>>> there which we all need to know and to handle.
>>>
>>> 5.0 will get all the fixes which will reflect in versions 5.0.x, commits
>>> will mostly get cherry-picked from master. Hopefully not that much.
>>>
>>> 5.1 will get at least the GTK+3 adjustments and will finally cover all
>>> versions 5.1.x (like 5.0 for 5.0.x). The GTK stuff is developed in this
>>> branch and will be merged into master. Any other changes than GTK+3
>>> which should be released with versions 5.1.x are also made here and get
>>> merged into master.
>>>
>>> master is and will be the main nightly development channel. All changes
>>> here are mainly for any releases greater than 5.x.x.
>>>
>>> This all are just my thoughts as I would like to see it, the above
>>> suggestion is based on some experiences I have made with other projects
>>> and work. Please remember that also the l10n and documentation trees are
>>> related to this! The base for all future work for all side needs to be
>>> clear early as possible.
>>>
>>> Anyhow ...
>>>
>>> (Hmm, I don't wanted to a top posting but my answer wasn't fitting to
>>> any made statement.)
>>>
>>> Am 19.07.2018 um 17:19 schrieb Wayne Stambaugh:
>>>> You are preaching to the choir.  I did most of the maintenance on the
>>>> 4.0 branch.  Initially it was easy but it didn't take long for it to
>>>> become a PITA.  If no one else objects, I would be more than happy to
>>>> make that the policy.  If that is indeed what we want to do, I would
>>>> delete the 5.1 branch.  It will push v6 development back significantly.
>>>>
>>>> On 7/19/2018 11:10 AM, Jon Evans wrote:
>>>>> FWIW, as someone who is also maintaining parallel feature branches, I
>>>>> agree with Orson and John.  Now that we have committed to this 5.1 idea,
>>>>> we should just make it happen in master.  I think if we keep both master
>>>>> and 5.1 branch running in parallel, inevitably one or the other of them
>>>>> will be less tested / more broken unless people spend a bunch of time
>>>>> doing the work of keeping them synchronized manually.  The cost of this
>>>>> doesn't seem to outweigh the benefit of being able to merge some 6.0
>>>>> features into master sooner.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:03 AM John Beard <john.j.beard@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> <mailto:john.j.beard@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Wayne Stambaugh
>>>>>     <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>>>>     > Unless we are going to prohibit new features (new file formats,
>>>>>     new tool
>>>>>     > framework for eeschema, etc.) from being merged into the dev branch
>>>>>     > until 5.1 is released, I disagree.  If we want to only work on 5.1 in
>>>>>     > the dev branch, then I'm OK with this proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>>     This is essentially my proposal - limit dev branch changes to 5.1
>>>>>     features, uncontroversial maintenance and bugfixes.
>>>>>
>>>>>     If people want to work on features for 6 now, that can be done in
>>>>>     separate branches, and the onus for keeping it rebased onto the 5.1
>>>>>     changes is on them, rather than forcing the 5.1 workers to deal with
>>>>>     conflicts. Otherwise, whoever is working on 5.1 features like the
>>>>>     GTK3/GAL stuff and printing, will have to continually port their work
>>>>>     between the two branches.
>>>>>
>>>>>     If 5.1 changes are unlikely to be substantially affected by 6.0-facing
>>>>>     changes, then perhaps this limitation is not useful.
>>>>>
>>>>>     > There should be nothing in the 5.1 branch that is not also in the dev
>>>>>     > branch so everything in the 5.1 branch should be tested in the dev
>>>>>     > branch builds.
>>>>>
>>>>>     In theory, yes, but if fixes need to be manually ported as the
>>>>>     branches diverge, it's possible to fail to fix, or break in new ways,
>>>>>     one branch or the other. If a 5.1 branch exists in parallel to 6.0,
>>>>>     someone will have to take responsibility to ensure the appropriate
>>>>>     fixes are identified, ported and tested as needed. In the Linux world,
>>>>>     this is the unglamorous, arduous (and vital) job of the stable branch
>>>>>     maintainers.
>>>>>
>>>>>     I'm not against parallel branches if someone is willing to step up to
>>>>>     be a stable branch maintainer for 5.1. In fact, I'd be thrilled to get
>>>>>     nice new stuff dropping into the dev branch. However, changes that
>>>>>     need to be in both branches are not trivially rebasable, that job will
>>>>>     soon become decidedly not-fun.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>     John
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature