Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add feature release instructions to gitworkflows man page
- From
- Raman Gupta <rocketraman@fastmail.fm>
- Date
- Mar 26, 2009, 14:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <49CB92B2.6070909@fastmail.fm>
- In-Reply-To
- <7veiwksrsr.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> rocketraman@fastmail.fm writes: > >> +Release Tagging >> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> + >> +The new feature release is tagged on 'master' with a tag matching >> +vX.Y.Z, where X.Y.Z is the new feature release version. >> + >> +.Release tagging >> +[caption="Recipe: "] >> +========================================== >> +`git tag -s -m GIT "vX.Y.Z" vX.Y.Z` >> +========================================== > > I actually always do: > > git tag -s -m "GIT X.Y.Z" vX.Y.Z master > > The argument to -m in your descriptoin is incorrectly quoted, and has an > extra v. I also spell out 'master' to avoid mistakes, and I would be > happy to encourage others to follow it.
Fixed.
Show 23 quoted lines
>> +Maintenance branch update
>> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> +
>> +The current maintenance branch is optionally tracked with the older
>> +release version number to allow for further maintenance releases on
>> +the older codebase.
>> +
>> +.Track maint
>> +[caption="Recipe: "]
>> +=====================================
>> +`git branch maint-X.Y.(Z-1) maint`
>> +=====================================
>
> This creates maint-X.Y.(Z-1) from maint, but calling this step "track
> maint" entirely misses the point.
>
> When people use the word "track", the intention is that they intend to
> merge subsequent changes to the original branch (in this case, 'maint') to
> the new branch ('maint-X.Y.(Z-1)') from time to time.
>
> That is exactly opposite to what I create maint-X.Y.(Z-1) branch for.
> This new "branch to maintain an older codebase" will *never* merge from
> 'maint' after it forks.Yeah, I originally had written "Copy maint" but copy seemed to be more subversion-speak rather than git-speak so I changed it. However it does seem to accurately describe the operation. Would "Copy maint" be acceptable terminology?
Show 10 quoted lines
>> +Update next branch >> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> + >> +The 'next' branch may be rebuilt from the tip of 'master' using the >> +surviving topics on 'next'. >> + >> +This step is optional. If it is done by the maintainer, then a public >> +announcement will be made indicating that 'next' was rebased. > > The wording I use is more like 'rewound and rebuilt'.
Fixed.
Cheers, Raman