• We'll not use hotfix branches
• We'll use the term develop branch (not integration branch)

Continuous integration (Hudson)

The following branches will have a continuous integration job running

• master
• release branches
• develop

Build (maven)

• same snapshot version (develop and master)?
  
  • see open Issues

Maintenance

• no changes
• no hot fix branches (for the moment)

Feature branches

• remove them after the final merge
• list of feature branches --> things we are actively working on or are waiting
• how to remove the branches?

Rules

• central repo
  
  • no feature branches
• merging at the end of the sprint (develop -> master)
  
  • scrum masters
• on develop branch
  
  • revert immediately as soon it fails

Open Issues

Sharing feature branches [Daniel]

• how to share them without having them on the central repo
  
  • ppl could define remote repos on others computers
    
    • spider net! - over time every dev will work with every other...
    • no out-of-the-box backup
    • hard to track what's being worked on
  • According to Greg nothing speaks against having them in central repo!

Version conflicts for snapshots [Daniel/Gregory]

• do we need a special version?
• other repository?
• dev classifier?
• something has to guarantee that not the wrong versions are used on the master!

Continuous integration

• Need frequent (daily) merge back to development branch
• conflicts will otherwise be hit too late

Branching effort

Creating branches and merging is cheap in git - but if you have to touch lot's of modules it might no longer be the case

• As we almost have a one git-repo per module setup feature branching might involve quite an effort in maintaining branches
  • e.g. for metadata-as-mixin we have to create (later merge then delete) branches for magnolia_main, magnolia_ui, ce-bundle, stk?, etk?, demo-project?,...

Links

By the way: feature branching vs. continuous integration has heavily been debated - mainly because of Martin Fowler's vote to not go for feature branches. Here's a bunch of links around it:

• a successful git branching model (main influence for our approach)
• a tidy git workflow (similar to above)
• continues delivery (Martin Fowler et al. voting to not go for feature branches)