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

On 13 Jun 2002, Bill Haneman wrote:

> 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).
> OK;
> 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.

That is what i do for Nautilus and Eel.
 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl redhat com    alla lysator liu se 
He's a war-weary coffee-fuelled cyborg haunted by memories of 'Nam. She's a 
psychotic Buddhist mechanic trying to make a difference in a man's world. They 
fight crime! 

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