content/blog/2010/05/mercurial-workflows-stable-default.markdown @ e7bc59b9ebda

+++
title = "Mercurial Workflows: Stable & Default"
snip = "Part 2 of several."
date = 2010-05-17T18:27:00Z
draft = false

+++

This entry is the second in my series describing various Mercurial workflows.
The [first][branch-as-needed] describes the simplest one: branching only
when necessary.

If you're working on a larger project you might want something with a bit more
structure. This post is about the "stable and default" workflow.

[branch-as-needed]: /blog/2010/02/mercurial-workflows-branch-as-needed/

{{% toc %}}

"Stable and Default" in a Nutshell
----------------------------------

The general idea of this workflow is that you keep two branches: `default` and
`stable`.

* **`default`** is the branch where new features and functionality are added.
* **`stable`** is where bug fixes are added, as well as documentation improvements
  that don't pertain to new features.

Each time you make a bug fix in `stable` you merge it into `default`, so
`default` is always a superset of `stable`.

Periodically (whenever you're ready for a "major release") you'll merge
`default` into `stable` so new features can be included in releases.

[Mercurial][] itself [uses][hg-branches] this workflow for development, so it
can scale well to projects of moderate to large size.

[Mercurial]: http://hg-scm.org/
[hg-branches]: http://selenic.com/repo/hg/branches/

Branch Setup
------------

To get started using this workflow you'll need to create a `stable` named
branch:

```console
hg branch stable
hg commit -m "Create the stable branch."
```

Once you do this users of your project can clone the `stable` branch and be
confident that they're getting a relatively stable version of your code.  To
clone a branch like this they would do something like:

```console
hg clone http://bitbucket.org/you/yourproject#stable
```

This will clone your project's repository and include only changesets on the
`stable` branch (and any of their ancestors).

Making Changes
--------------

The goal of this workflow is to do all non-bugfix development on the `default`
branch.  Pure bug fixes should go on the `stable` branch so `stable` stays as,
well, "stable" as possible.

Users that want to live on the bleeding edge of development can use the
`default` branch of your project.  Hopefully your project has some users that
are willing to work with `default` and inform you of bugs found with the new
functionality you add to it.

Whenever you make a change to `stable` you'll want to merge it into `default`
so that `default` always remains a superset of `stable`. This makes `default`
as stable as it can possibly be.  It also makes it easier to merge `default`
back into stable whenever you're ready for a major release.

Here's an example of how your repository's graph will end up looking:

![Sample Default and Stable Graph](/media/images/blog/2010/05/default-stable-example.png "Sample Default and Stable Graph")

Notice how each time some changes are made on `stable` they're merged to
`default`.

Releasing Major Versions
------------------------

There will come a time when you're ready to release non-bugfix improvements to
your project to the general public. Non-bugfix improvements are made in the
`default` branch, so when you're ready to do this you'll merge `default` into
`stable`.

Because your project has more `stable` users than bleeding-edge users, you'll
probably get more bug reports than usual after you release a major version.
This is to be expected and you should be ready for it.

Tagging Releases
----------------

Any decent project should tag releases.  This lets users easily use a version
of your project that they know works.

Wondering how to decide when to tag releases, and what to use for the tags?
The [semantic versioning][semver] specification is a great guide that makes it
easy for your users to know (in a broad sense) what each release changes.

In a nutshell, tags in a semantically versioned project work like this:

* Tags are of the form "v[MAJOR].[MINOR].[BUGFIX]"
* Tags with a major version of "0" make no guarantees about anything. They are
  used for alpha/beta versions of the project.
* An increase in the bugfix version of a project means "bugs were fixed."
* An increase in the minor version of a project means "functionality has been
  added without breaking backwards compatibility."
* An increase in the major version of a project means "backwards compatibility
  has been broken."

Unfortunately this workflow makes it a bit more complicated to add semantic
versioning tags to your project. The rules for semantic tagging would work like
this:

* When you fix a bug on the `stable` branch, increment the bugfix version on
  `stable` and merge `stable` into `default`.
* When you add new functionality and are ready to release it to the public,
  merge `default` into stable and increment the minor version of `stable`.
* When you're ready for a backwards-incompatible release, merge `default` into
  stable and increment the major version of `stable`.

The problem with this is that `default` never has any version tags. However,
this probably isn't a big deal because users of `default` are those that want
to live on the bleeding edge of your project and aren't as concerned with
stability.

[semver]: http://semver.org/

Why Default and Stable Instead of Default and Dev?
--------------------------------------------------

In the workflow I've described there are two branches: `default` and `stable`.
You might be wondering why `default` is used for new development and the
"stable" branch is relegated to a named branch.

The reason is that `default` will typically have many, many more changesets
added to it than `stable`, and so making the "development" branch the default
makes it easier on the developers.

There is absolutely *nothing* wrong with making `default` the "stable" branch
and creating a `dev` branch for "unstable" changes. If your project rarely adds
new functionality but is more concerned with fixing bugs this version of the
workflow will obviously be better for you.

This version also has the added advantage of giving users that naively clone
your project (without a branch specified) the stable version.  Since many users
don't bother to read instructions even when you provide them, there is a strong
argument for using it even when your project is *not* overly concerned with bug
fixes.

It's up to you to decide which version you want to use.