How we use Git

[Randall S. Becker]

>On November 3, 2014 10:52 AM  Gervase Markham wrote:
>On 03/11/14 15:39, Mark Côté wrote:
>> A very good point.  I'm up for removing bugzilla-stable.  And in 
> keeping with the other thread, we should probably name these "release-X.X-stable".
>Well, release-4.4.6 would be a tag, but release-4.4-stable would be a branch. And yet they feel like similar things. Is that a problem, or not?

The git implication is that the release-X.X-stable branch is where development/fixes would be done in an accumulating fashion. The tag release-4.4.6 could also be used to create a fix branch in an emergency from that tag, but I do not think that follows the Bugzilla fix approach. 

>> or just
>> 
>> git clone --branch bugzilla-4.2-stable 
>> http://git.mozilla.org/bugzilla/bugzilla.git

>Yes, indeed :-)

This would be the way to get the 4.2 fix branch. In the ideal git world, contributors should create their own branch off this one, make their changes on their branch, push, and then approvers would merge the changes onto the 4.2-stable branch and create a release-4.2.1 tag when the fix release goes out. In another ideal world, the changes on the contributor's branch could then be merged into the 4.4-stable branch, if the fix applies there also.

It might be helpful to establish standards for naming those branches. In my git-infused organization, each bug has its own branch (and each developer on that bug has a separate branch, with one developer "owning" the merges). Typically, it is "task-nnnnn-initials" for us, with "task-nnnnn" being the root branch off the release or development branch.

I might be stating the obvious ;-)