[Biojava-dev] Post-release branches

[Spencer Bliven]

We need to keep the most inclusive branch (5.0) named 'master' due to
assumptions by many kinds of software. We already have a 'release' branch
which contains only the official releases, for those who want to check out
stable versions via git. I'm going to go ahead and set up 'patch' and
'minor' branches.

Andreas, thanks for the SourceTree suggestion. I will try that out. It
looks like a step up from my current software-of-choice, gitx
<http://gitx.frim.nl/> (mac only). Does anyone know a good linux git GUI? I
currently use gitk for viewing trees and diffs, but I'd really like
something that lets you cleanly see diffs when staging and committing (and
ideally enables staging of individual lines & blocks, like gitx).

-Spencer

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Douglas Myers–Turnbull <
dmyersturnbull at gmail.com> wrote:

> I support this completely. Alternate names are "stable"/"release" (4.0),
> "dev" (4.1), and "next" (5.0). The name "master" is pretty generic and
> might be misleading.
>
> Douglas
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Andreas Prlic <andreas at sdsc.edu> wrote:
>
>> +1 we are not making enough usage of branches currently. And while we are
>> at it, I recommend everybody to use the SourceTree software for managing
>> git commits and branches. Makes life easy.
>>
>> A
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Jose Manuel Duarte <jose.duarte at psi.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  +1
>>>
>>> Sounds like a good idea, if people are familiar enough with git that
>>> should not be very demanding.
>>>
>>> Regarding naming I like the "patch, minor, master" suggestion. Like that
>>> the branch names will stay stable for any version.
>>>
>>> Jose
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30.01.2015 14:14, Spencer Bliven wrote:
>>>
>>>   One of the things I would like to be better about post-4.0.0 is
>>> releasing bug fixes more quickly. For instance, users were complaining
>>> about having to wait for 4.0.0 to work with Java 8, even through the Java8
>>> bugs were fixed soon after 3.1.0 was released.
>>>
>>>  I think this would be easy to do if we keep three branches going for
>>> versions 4.0.1 (bug fixes only), 4.1.0 (backwards-compatible features
>>> only), and 5.0.0 (major api changes). Pull requests should be made to the
>>> appropriate branch, and changes can always be merged to a higher level
>>> (e.g. the 5.0.0 should always contain all commits from the 4.1.0 branch).
>>>
>>>  Branches could be named pre4.0.1, pre4.1.0, master; or perhaps patch,
>>> minor, master (to match semantic versioning levels).
>>>
>>>  What do people think? Would the ease of making patch releases and minor
>>> releases be worth the burden of the added complexity?
>>>
>>>  -Spencer
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> biojava-dev mailing listbiojava-dev at mailman.open-bio.orghttp://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> biojava-dev mailing list
>>> biojava-dev at mailman.open-bio.org
>>> http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> biojava-dev mailing list
>> biojava-dev at mailman.open-bio.org
>> http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> biojava-dev mailing list
> biojava-dev at mailman.open-bio.org
> http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biojava-dev/attachments/20150202/754c41bd/attachment.html>