Re: Lets get branches names right this time (was: Re: Proposed release process/plans)

On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 18:38, Chema Celorio wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 12:27, Bill Haneman wrote:
> > The problem with this scheme is that 2-0-0 is "two branches removed"
> > from HEAD, which is a significant problem in that important patches
> > (i.e. for stoppers) have to be committed to three places, and ordinary
> > bugfixes to two places (i.e. 2-0 and HEAD).  That's a bit burdensome...
> > which is why I propose to hold new features until 2-0-1 branches, or
> > else put them on their own branch.
> Yes, the problem here is that each module is different. It is hard to
> say to hold new features for all modules, they are in different
> development cycles and stability (I'm thinking libgnomeprint).


Does anyone have an issue with me using gnome-2-0-0 for
2.0.0-release-only code, and continuing to use HEAD for 2.0.1 until it
enters a "deeper" freeze?  That way at least the branch names for the
actual release candidates match up.


> Chema

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]