asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Till Westmann" <>
Subject Re: Documentation branch name change
Date Sat, 09 May 2015 14:43:53 GMT
I'm not sure what other changes we could/should have there.
The idea of the documentation branch is to have one branch that 
represents exactly what's on the website (and in e.g. VXQuery that 
branch is called "site" - maybe that's clearer?).
And since the site is always there, the branch is always there.
If we did code-hotfixes, I think that those would only be temporary 
branches that get merged quickly and disappear again.

Does that make sense?
What kind of non-site changes should be in such a "long-running" branch?


On 4 May 2015, at 11:27, Ildar Absalyamov wrote:

> Do we want to limit the changes in this branch to documentation only?
> What if be adopt gitflow convention (at least partially) and name it 
> “hotfixes”?
>> On May 4, 2015, at 10:28, Steven Jacobs <> wrote:
>> Yes, it's a branch of our code that can be used to update the 
>> documentation
>> for the current release of Asterix. So the actual code within this 
>> branch
>> will remain the same until a future release, but the portion 
>> containing the
>> docs can be updated and therefore reflected on our website. At least 
>> this
>> is my understanding. Anyone feel free to chime in where I am wrong.
>> Steven
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Henry Saputra 
>> <>
>> wrote:
>>> When you said document branch, is it just a separate git-like branch
>>> for updating documentation?
>>> - Henry
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Steven Jacobs <> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I had a couple of questions as we are migrating to Apache.
>>>> 1) As far as I know right now we have no way to push to the 
>>>> documentation
>>>> branch on Google Code (As the code site is currently read-only, and 
>>>> there
>>>> is no code review process set up except for the master branch). Is 
>>>> this
>>>> being addressed in our migration?
>>>> 2) I was wondering if we could take this opportunity to rename the
>>>> documentation branch to be more clear. We could call it "release" 
>>>> or
>>>> something similar. The reason I am asking is because I feel like 
>>>> calling
>>> it
>>>> simply "documentation" is a little confusing. As far as I know, the
>>>> "documentation" branch represents exactly what is available for 
>>>> end-users
>>>> today, so it is not only the current documentation but also the 
>>>> latest
>>>> official release of the code. This makes the name 
>>>> counter-intuitive, at
>>>> least for me. Any thoughts?
>>>> Steven
> Best regards,
> Ildar

View raw message