[Pywps-dev] development workflow update

[Tom Kralidis]

Thanks Luís.  FYI I've tested this approach against my fork for an idea:

https://github.com/tomkralidis/pywps

Here is the commit history:

https://github.com/tomkralidis/pywps/commits/master

Note that last push is the action that updates master.

As well, I would push a backup copy of master called master-old before
merging just in case.

Thoughts on moving forward?  To recap, propose pywps-4 branch to become
the new master branch and branch pywps-3.2 is our 3.x support.

..Tom

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Luís de Sousa wrote:

> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:51:49 +0100
> From: Luís de Sousa <luis.a.de.sousa at gmail.com>
> To: Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com>
> Cc: "pywps-dev at lists.osgeo.org" <pywps-dev at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pywps-dev] development workflow update
> 
> Hi Tom,
>
> I understand your points; the ours strategy looks appropriate.
>
> Luís
>
> On 11 February 2016 at 13:30, Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Luís: good question.  IMHO keeping both under the same repostory
>> makes sense from a project viability perspective:
>>
>> - we are in OSGeo incubation for 3. Doing a merge now keeps the
>>   project straight / clean over time
>> - since the incubation started in 3, it is not clear if the
>>   application will be valid after rewriting the software, dump the old
>>   code base and starting from scratch.  Having said this, 4 will have to
>>   to be mature, which takes time, with lots of deployments and community
>>   behind it
>> - there is already a considerable community around 3 so let's leverage
>>   that existing community
>> - the licensing change and rewrite between PyWPS 3 and 4 does not present
>>   any complications
>> - packaging management becomes much easier along a single path
>>
>> ..Tom
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Luís de Sousa wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 08:44:25 +0100
>>> From: Luís de Sousa <luis.a.de.sousa at gmail.com>
>>> To: Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: "pywps-dev at lists.osgeo.org" <pywps-dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Pywps-dev] development workflow update
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi there Tom,
>>>
>>> What are the advantages of merging the two git projects? It seems far
>>> simpler to keep versions 3 and 4 separated.
>>>
>>> Luís
>>>
>>> On 11 February 2016 at 02:37, Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More thoughts:
>>>>
>>>> Given current master and pywps-4 branches have totally different
>>>> commit histories, it is not possible to simply merge pywps-4 into
>>>> master via GitHub pull request.  One option we could consider is using
>>>> the "ours" merge strategy:
>>>>
>>>> git checkout pywps-4
>>>> git merge -s ours master
>>>> git checkout master
>>>> git merge pywps-4
>>>> git push -f origin master
>>>>
>>>> This essentially pushes pywps-4 into master branch without wiping out
>>>> master branch history.
>>>>
>>>> ..Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all: FYI the following have been completed
>>>>> against https://github.com/geopython/pywps:
>>>>>
>>>>> - master branch is up to date
>>>>> - issues / milestones are up to date and represent 3.x and 4.x plans
>>>>> - branch pywps-4 represents our PyWPS 4 effort
>>>>> - branch pywps-3.2 represents our 3.x development.  At this point in
>>>>> time
>>>>> any
>>>>>   fixes in master that apply to 3.x should be also applied to branch
>>>>> pywps-3.2
>>>>> - any further 3.x releases are to built/tagged/released off branch
>>>>> pywps-3.2
>>>>>
>>>>> At some point branch pywps-4 will be merged as master and pywps-3.2 will
>>>>> be
>>>>> our 3.x support branch.  From that point forward, any changes in master
>>>>> should _not_ be applied to branch pywps-3.2 given the backward
>>>>> compability break.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to hear thoughts on pywps-4 -> master efforts and when folks
>>>>> think is a good time to move that over.  The idea here is that we have
>>>>> supported releases (3.2.3) to download or pip install, and master
>>>>> represents development.  Does anyone have any knowledge that master
>>>>> is being used operationally anywhere (which is a bad idea given it's
>>>>> not a release).
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> ..Tom
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pywps-dev mailing list
>>>> pywps-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pywps-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>