Over a million developers have joined DZone.
{{announcement.body}}
{{announcement.title}}

Managing a Multi-Version Project

DZone 's Guide to

Managing a Multi-Version Project

Take a look at a few ways RavenDB is optimizing their multi-version project management.

· DevOps Zone ·
Free Resource

As I’m writing this, we have the following branches in the main repository of RavenDB. Looking at their history, we have:image

Branch

Last Commit

Number of commits this year

v1.0

Feb 3, 2013

0

v2.0

Oct 14, 2016

0

v2.5

Oct 18, 2018

14

v3.0

Aug 14, 2018

10

v3.5

Oct 11, 2018

45

v4.0

Oct 18, 2018

2,270

v4.1

Oct 18, 2018

3,214

v4.2

Oct 18, 2018

95


The numbers are actually really interesting. Branches v1.0 and v2.0 are legacy and no longer supported. Branch v2.5 is also legacy, but we have a few customers with support contracts that are still using it so there are still minor bug fixes going on there occasionally. Most of the people on the 3.x line are using 3.5, which is now in maintenance mode, so you can see that there is very little work on the v3.0 branch and a few ongoing bug fixes for customers.

The bulk of the work is on the 4.x line. We released v4.0 in Feb of this year, and then switch to working on v4.1, which was released a couple of months ago. We actively started working on v4.2 this month. We are going to close down the v4.0 branch for new features at the end of this month and move it too to maintenance mode.

In practical terms, we very rarely need to do cross major version work but we do have a lot of prev, current, next parallel work. In other words, the situation right now is that a bug fix has to go to at least v4.1 and v4.2 and usually to v4.0 as well. We have been dealing with several different ways to handle this task.

For v4.0 and v4.1 work, which went on in parallel for most of this year, we had the developers submit two pull requests for their changes, one for v4.0 and one for v4.1. This increased the amount of work each change took, but the cost was usually just a few minutes at PR submission time since we could usually cherry-pick the relevant changes and be done with it. The reason we did it this way is to avoid big merges as we move work between actively worked on branches. That would require having someone dedicated just to handle that, and it was easier to do it in line, rather than in a big bang fashion.

For the v4.2 branch, we are experimenting with something else. Most of the work is going on in the v4.1 branch at this point, mostly minor features and updates, while the v4.2 branch is experimenting with a much larger scope of changes. It doesn’t make sense to ask the team to send three PRs, and we are going to close down v4.0 this month anyway. What we are currently doing is designating a person that is in charge of merging the v4.1 changes to v4.2 on a regular basis. So far, we are still pretty close and there hasn’t been a big amount of changes. Depending on how it goes, we’ll keep doing the dual PR once v4.0 is retired from active status or see if the merges can keep going on.

For feature branches, the situation is more straightforward. We typically ask the owner of the feature to rebase on a regular basis on top of whatever the baseline is, and the responsibility to do that is on them.

A long feature branch for us can last up to a month or so, but we had a few that took 3 months when it was a big change. I tend to really dislike those and we are trying to get them to a much shorter timeframe. Most of the work doesn’t happen in a feature branch, we’ll accept partial solutions (if they don’t impact anything else) and we tend to collaborate a lot more closely on code that is already merged rather than in independent branches.

Topics:
devops ,project management ,legacy code

Published at DZone with permission of

Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.

{{ parent.title || parent.header.title}}

{{ parent.tldr }}

{{ parent.urlSource.name }}