Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Draft new contribution guide #245

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Draft new contribution guide #245

wants to merge 2 commits into from
+31 −26

Conversation

bari12
Copy link
Member

@bari12 bari12 commented Aug 9, 2023

No description provided.

mlassnig
mlassnig reviewed Aug 10, 2023
View reviewed changes
docs/contributing.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
docs/contributing.md Outdated
A contribution can be either be a **patch** or **feature**:
A contribution can be either be included in the **next** major release or the
ongoing **current** release line, e.g. `release-33` This becomes relevant when
naming the branches of your contributions (See section 3) so the Rucio maintainers
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

section 3?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Section 3 of this page? Not sure how to better refer to it :-)

docs/contributing.md
versions. Hotfix branches are created on demand. Please communicate to the Rucio
maintainers, if you wish to hotfix a previous release.
* the **master** branch includes the developments for the next major release.
* the **release-…** branches include the patch/minor developments of the
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this sentence is a bit confusing, maybe split?

docs/contributing.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@dchristidis
Copy link
Contributor

I wonder whether using the placeholder name 32.NEXT as a milestone is not ideal (meaning that, if this PR is merged, then it would be preferable if ‘next’ referred exclusively to the upcoming major release).

@bari12
Copy link
Member Author

bari12 commented Aug 23, 2023

@dchristidis Agreed, I replaced it by 32.? where needed.
I updated the draft, please have a look.

@dchristidis
Copy link
Contributor

I would have never expected 32.? to be taken seriously. Naming things is hard!

How about we use XX.NEXT for the next release in the current line and rename the next major release from next to future?

@bari12
Copy link
Member Author

bari12 commented Aug 23, 2023

I think we have to distinguish two things. In the contribution guide we are abstractly talking about the ongoing release line and the future major release line. To me XX.NEXT does not work well here, it's confusing and on top you won't name a branch 32.next-1234-this-is-my-development. Having both the terms next and future I find confusing as well. So here I would stick to current and next. Or current and future (Though I think the term next is more established in the open source world).
The other story is in places where we talk about the specific upcoming minor/patch release within the currently ongoing release line. For example in the GH milestones, or the weekly meetings etc. For this I very much like 32.PLACEHOLDER, with PLACEHOLDER possibly being ?. I would not re-use any of the terms described in the first part though, again, that just adds confusion.

@bari12
Copy link
Member Author

bari12 commented Aug 23, 2023

Just to add, I don't mind even writing 32.3.0/32.2.1 - it's just more difficult to verbally say 😄 But maybe this is the way to go.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@mlassnig mlassnig mlassnig left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@bari12 @dchristidis @mlassnig @voetberg