![]() |
1.8 Next development steps ("1.10") - Printable Version +- MyBB Community Forums (https://community.mybb.com) +-- Forum: Development (https://community.mybb.com/forum-161.html) +--- Forum: Suggestions and Feedback (https://community.mybb.com/forum-199.html) +--- Thread: 1.8 Next development steps ("1.10") (/thread-214038.html) |
Next development steps ("1.10") - Euan T - 2017-11-11 Following the MyBB 1.x and 2.x Development RFC thread, and the recent release of 1.8.13, I think it's time to start discussing exactly what we want to see from the future of MyBB 1.8, heading into 2.0. I decided to start this thread to layout some of my ideas of what Id like to see and how we might approach this future. This will be a slightly more technical thread, so don't expect screenshots of new themes or features or anything like that. None of this work has started, and the plans will change based upon feedback. Also realise that these are all just things I'd like to see and not the thoughts of the whole team. Enhancements/Improvements
Approach Currently the core MyBB repository has two main branches:
One possible new set of branches would be:
Once 1.10 was released, a "master/1.10" branch would be introduced, containing the most recent stable release of 1.10. One consideration here is whether the "master/1.6" branch is needed at all. All releases are tagged with a release version, so old stable released versions can be downloaded using these tags. Again, these are all just my current thoughts on the future direction. Some changes are fairly easy to implement (caching system changes, introduction of Swift Mailer), some are more difficult (completely changing the template system for the front-end). Once we reach something resembling an agreement of what we want and how we want to approach it, we can start looking at assigning tasks and starting the development process. RE: Next development steps ("1.10") - Wildcard - 2017-11-11 (2017-11-11, 02:12 PM)Euan T Wrote: One possible new set of branches would be: I feel this should be more like:
EDIT: And I don't think we need a branch for 1.6 at all, but if it is insisted upon then a branch named archive-1600 or the like would suffice. RE: Next development steps ("1.10") - Devilshakerz - 2017-11-11 (2017-11-11, 05:32 PM)Wildcard Wrote:(2017-11-11, 02:12 PM)Euan T Wrote: One possible new set of branches would be: Seems like naming changes only, which should follow some wider standard - the suggestions from Slack follow the concept described at https://gist.github.com/dvz/eca6ba94dded641dfa98e766e45fbe3d, i.e. Gitflow. Since we're planning to maintain 2 stable series simultaneously each should have a master/* branch to hold stable code (which will be downloaded from repositories directly by tools and dependency managers). minor is usually develop or feature - 1.8, while feature-locked, would still receive numerous bugfixes (as it does now); patch would be either hotfix/* (release-specific, merged directly into master and merged back to the development branch) or release/* (derived from develop and merged to master). Once a stable series reaches EOL the next one's branches could be renamed simply to master develop (1.8 stable code might as well be merged into master after each relase) but keeping the version suffixes could prevent mix-ups, especially that the future of each series will become less certain. I don't see downsides to dropping the 1.6 branch altogether. RE: Next development steps ("1.10") - Wildcard - 2017-11-11 (2017-11-11, 06:13 PM)Devilshakerz Wrote: Seems like naming changes only, which should follow some wider standard - the suggestions from Slack follow the concept described at https://gist.github.com/dvz/eca6ba94dded641dfa98e766e45fbe3d, i.e. Gitflow. How do you see my suggestion as "naming changes only"? What I am suggesting is that we stop putting our latest release in the feature branch and follow the standard which is to have the latest release in master at all time-- not to have two or three master branches, but one single branch. When 1.10 is released as stable then an archive and patch/maintenance branch should be made for 1.8-- it is that simple. The second that 1.10 is stable, 1.8 is on a clock to extinction and we should think that way from here on out. Starting with the removal of 1.6 from the repo-- as Euan mentioned tags exists so there is no point in keeping the branch alive. RE: Next development steps ("1.10") - Devilshakerz - 2017-11-11 (2017-11-11, 10:12 PM)Wildcard Wrote:(2017-11-11, 06:13 PM)Devilshakerz Wrote: Seems like naming changes only, which should follow some wider standard - the suggestions from Slack follow the concept described at https://gist.github.com/dvz/eca6ba94dded641dfa98e766e45fbe3d, i.e. Gitflow. That's the plan. master/1.8 might appear more obvious than patch for people looking for stable 1.8 code and whenever a branch is renamed or moved all links and Pull Requests break, hence version suffixes. RE: Next development steps ("1.10") - Wildcard - 2017-11-11 (2017-11-11, 10:34 PM)Devilshakerz Wrote: master/1.8 might appear more obvious than patch for people looking for stable 1.8 code and whenever a branch is renamed or moved all links and Pull Requests break, hence version suffixes. The naming suggestions I made weren't meant to be taken too literally. Suffixes are fine and as I mentioned, 1.8 would obviously need its own stable branch. I am opposed to having any sort of suffix on the master branch, however. The assumption that master = latest release should be fostered and kept as the default on all open source projects. RE: Next development steps ("1.10") - Lunorian - 2017-11-13 MyBB 1.6 branch is a historic record, it shouldn't be removed. RE: Next development steps ("1.10") - laie_techie - 2017-11-14 At work, my team needs to support multiple versions of our product. Based on my experience, I suggest the following: master => latest stable released version; commits on this branch are tagged develop => development for the version to be released next x.y-master => latest stable released version of the x.y series; only created if a patch is needed x.y-develop => development branch for the x.y series The big benefit over Euan's suggestion is that "master" is always the latest and greatest stable version. RE: Next development steps ("1.10") - Wildcard - 2017-11-14 (2017-11-14, 12:10 AM)laie_techie Wrote: master => latest stable released version; commits on this branch are tagged Exactly. RE: Next development steps ("1.10") - Euan T - 2017-11-14 (2017-11-13, 11:42 PM)Lunorian Wrote: MyBB 1.6 branch is a historic record, it shouldn't be removed. The current feature branch builds upon the current master branch. Removing the current master branch (1.6) doesn't result in any loss of history whatsoever. |