mirror of
https://github.com/hirschmann/nbfc.git
synced 2026-04-25 08:35:56 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #567] New branching model #512
Labels
No labels
Stale
bug
config
discussion
duplicate
enhancement
experimental
feature
help-wanted
info
invalid
invalid
pull-request
question
up-for-grabs
wontfix
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/nbfc-hirschmann#512
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @hirschmann on GitHub (Oct 6, 2018).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/hirschmann/nbfc/issues/567
With the latest beta release, I have updated the branching model.
Up until now, there was only one public branch (master) which acted as the "stable most of the time" branch. This branching model was pretty shitty because users and package maintainers couldn't be sure theat the master branch is stable and I couldn't publish new stuff as fast as I wanted.
Therefore I've introduced two new public branches, so from now on there will be 3 different branches:
If you have suggestions for improvements, please let me know 😄
@hirschmann commented on GitHub (Oct 6, 2018):
@erkexzcx This might interest you
@erkexzcx commented on GitHub (Oct 6, 2018):
Heh, sure it is! I will push some updates to Arch Linux AUR.
The only question is - How about config profiles? I have few ideas:
A) Only 3 complete packages - Stable, Beta and Development.
B) 4 packages - Stable, Beta, Development packages without config profiles and separate package named "nbfc-configs" marked as a dependency for all 3 mentioned packages. Configs will be taken from Development version, since we want them as up to date as possible.
Thoughts?
@hirschmann commented on GitHub (Oct 6, 2018):
Pushing not very well tested configs out to users of stable (or semi-stable) versions will cause havoc sooner or later.
There might also be configs on the master branch which rely on features which haven't been pushed to beta/stable yet.
I would opt for option A and a faster release cycle.
@erkexzcx commented on GitHub (Oct 7, 2018):
Sure just give me few days to get those packages into AUR.
I just wanted to know if there are any new features planned/implemented? What is the purpose of making these new branches?
@hirschmann commented on GitHub (Oct 7, 2018):
Take as much time as you need. Thanks for packaging NBFC for the AUR :)
I have planned several changes which are potentially breaking:
All this stuff is much easier to implement when I'm able to push it to the master branch and get feedback early in the development process without having to keep the master branch stable.
@erkexzcx commented on GitHub (Oct 7, 2018):
Thanks for explaining me this!
FYI - I just recently pushed some updates to nbfc and nbfc-git packages to AUR. Unfortunately, I consulted Arch Linux Forums in regards of having multiple versions of NBFC app in AUR and final decision was 2 versions - stable & development (because there is no need to have more nbfc packages in AUR, right?). So basically this is what I am going to continue supporting:
@github-actions[bot] commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2019):
This issue is stale because it has been open more than 180 days with no activity. If nobody comments within 7 days, this issue will be closed