From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Bash Subject: Re: Workflow Recommendation - Probably your 1000th Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:14:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: bradford X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 02 16:14:48 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RWUp4-0006pB-OB for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:14:47 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754424Ab1LBPOl (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:14:41 -0500 Received: from hq.genarts.com ([173.9.65.1]:42296 "HELO mail.hq.genarts.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753969Ab1LBPOl (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:14:41 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hq.genarts.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A17BE82F8; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:14:42 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.hq.genarts.com Received: from mail.hq.genarts.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.hq.genarts.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u9vfRYOAqEpV; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:14:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.hq.genarts.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.hq.genarts.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25A6BE82FB; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 10:14:36 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.1.3_GA_3346 (ZimbraWebClient - GC15 (Mac)/7.1.3_GA_3346) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: ----- Original Message ----- > From: "bradford" > To: "Stephen Bash" > Cc: git@vger.kernel.org > Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 3:46:52 PM > Subject: Re: Workflow Recommendation - Probably your 1000th > > Thanks, Stephen. I guess I'm looking for more input on the > advantages and disadvantages of using a QA and production branch vs > just doing everything out of master. > > Trying to go through the following: > http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1617425 > scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html > > We have some weeks where we release very frequently and some weeks > where we release only once a week and have to do production fixes in > the meantime. Sure other people have similar experiences. Before continuing I guess two key assumptions factor into our workflow: 1) we still work in a traditional major/minor release cycle with potentially weeks or even months between releases 2) our customers can be running almost any historical version of our software >>From that perspective having a maintenance branch for each major revision of our software gives us a holding area where devs can fix bugs at any time without necessarily going through the entire tag/release/merge process (you can envision a "hot fix branch" that is long-lived). For example, we often have documentation fixes that will sit on the maintenance branch until a software fix needs to go out. But other non-critical fixes also end up waiting on something that really requires a maintenance release (or enough fixes pile up and necessitate a release themselves). HTH, Stephen