Contributors mailing list archives
Re: Confusion about branch 9.0 in githubby
Tecnativa. S. L., Pedro M. Baeza
Daniel, about how to incorporate changes done in 8.0 after the 9.0 "fork", I spent a few hours leading with git to achieve it and reflect it on the wiki page: https://github.com/OCA/maintainer-tools/wiki/Migration-to-version-9.0Regards.
2015-11-13 9:53 GMT+01:00 Daniel Reis <email@example.com>:
As a coincidence, yesterday I was doing some writing about v9 and came to the conclusion that it would be best to skip OCA 9.0 repos, since I found confusing to explain the existing yet disabled modules. In fact fact in the previous discussion we had to weight a clean Git history versus clarity on the ported modules. The final decision favoured Git history, and tried to minimized the visibility issue with a table with the unported modules. With the current situation, usability comes second to an easier retrieval of the change history. And the current solution still has the problem we found with the __unported__ directory: if the 8.0 evolved in the meanwhile, people porting to 9.0 the diabled code in 9.0 will miss thos changes. They will need to notice that and use some git hacks to get the missing changesets, but that's about the same work you need to git extract a module from 8.0 to 9.0 if 9.0 branches started out clean. I do think it's not a waste of time to reevaluate these options now, so I welcome this discussion. I stand on my position on that discussion, and still think that the best option is to delete de unported modules from the 9.0 branch. Regards Daniel