maria-developers team mailing list archive
-
maria-developers team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #10198
Re: 10.3 branches
Hi, Alexander!
Sure, 10.2-ext or 10.3-base - whatever you prefer.
I understand that bb-10.2-compatibility will be eventually
pushed into 10.3 too, when it'll be ready.
For now, I'd suggest the following:
10.2----------------------->10.3
\
\- 10.2-ext ---> 10.2-compat
and eventually 10.2-ext and 10.2-compat are getting merged or rebased
into 10.3.
Other features that depend on your refactoring and need be in the compat
branch, can be pushed directly into 10.2-ext.
Are there features that should not be in 10.2-compat but still depend on
your refactorings?
On Dec 16, Alexander Barkov wrote:
> Hello Serg, all,
>
> A few weeks ago I created a new branch "10.3" and pushed
> essential patches needed for the compatibility project.
>
> It worked as follows:
> - In 10.3:
> git rebase origin/10.2
> git push --force
>
> - In bb-10.2-compatibility:
> git rebase origin/10.3
> git push --force
>
>
> Now as other developers start to push into 10.3, this won't work
> anymore. We briefly discussed with Monty that, as the compatibility
> project should be as stable as possible and merging all 10.3 patches
> into bb-10.2-compatibility is not desirable, we could try something
> like this:
>
> Add a new branch (Monty proposed "10.3-base" as the name)
> and propagate changes as follows:
>
> - In 10.3-base:
> git rebase origin/10.2
> git push --force
>
> - In bb-10.2-compatibility
> git rebase origin/10.3-base
> git push --force
>
> - In 10.3:
> git merge origin/10.3-base
> git push (no --force)
>
>
> 10.2 ---(rebase)--->10.3-base--(rebase)-->bb-10.2-compatibility
> | |
> (merge) (merge)
> | |
> V |
> 10.3<-----------------/
>
>
> Any objections about this scheme?
>
> I'd only propose to use "10.2-ext" instead of "10.3-base",
> as this intermediate branch is going to be more 10.2 than 10.3.
Regards,
Sergei
Chief Architect MariaDB
and security@xxxxxxxxxxx
Follow ups
References