Stuck on an issue?

Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.

And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.

Consider a simpler branching strategy

See original GitHub issue

I’ve been thinking this for a while, but wanted to open this issue to get some thoughts down and generate some discussion 😃

Tl;DR; I think that the master/0.0.10-alpha/0.0.11-alpha strategy is unnecessarily complicated for ENiGMA-BBS and everything should be based around master.

I’m wondering if there are enough (any?) breaking changes pushed that justify breaking out new features into long-running (months long!) branches.
master is “master”, develop new features on feature branches, then merge once complete. The existing install script allows people to pick what branch to install from if they want to test a new feature (e.g. a Node upgrade).
Would prevent new users wondering where to start.
Branches are named by what they actually contain rather than a nondescript “alpha”.
Would make the Docker build process simpler (no need to update to 0.0.X-alpha)
Removes need to backport fixes.
Docs will always be up to date at https://nuskooler.github.io/enigma-bbs/
Makes development easier. Right now, changes are merged to the latest alpha branch, then backported further if they’re a fix. Also - where should a PR be raised against? master, alpha-X or ???
Updating from 0.X-alpha to 0.Y-alpha is no longer a thing, it’s just “rerun the installer from master”, or docker pull and boom, you’re up to date.
New breaking changes that need to be merged can be feature-flagged and enabled when a user decides.

Overall, I think it’d be less admin (yahoo!) and a simpler release, build and update experience 👍

Would appreciate thoughts!

Issue Analytics

State:
Created 3 years ago
Reactions:1
Comments:10 (7 by maintainers)

Top GitHub Comments

2reactions

davestephenscommented, May 28, 2020

Semver or GitVersion is cool with me - as long as it shows where (commit and branch) the image comes from then we’re good.

As @tracker1 says we can get the dockerhub build pipeline hooked to this repo (rather than off my docker repo as it is now).

I don’t really see any issues per-se, just stuff that needs to be done. I’d like to be able to help out with merging the Docker stuff from my repo onto master.

Dunno if you remember but we created this a couple of years back, so we’d just need to get the various bits and bobs set up to start using it. If you want to give me some sort of access to this repo so I can do the GitHub pipelines stuff, I’d be happy to handle that too…

1reaction

NuSkoolercommented, Jun 4, 2020

master is now mainline. Please give it a test. Closing this one so specific issues can be created from this point on.