Re: fast-forward only policy

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

Le mardi 05 mai 2009, à 01:51 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Marc-André Lureau
> <marcandre lureau gmail com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Felipe Contreras
> > <felipe contreras gmail com> wrote:
> >> [...] what is the point of having 'project' in the branch
> >> name? Branches are per-repository, so you would never have a non
> >> 'gtk-' branch in the GTK+ repo.
> >>
> >
> > Not "project" but really "[project]-[MAJOR]-[MINOR]"..
> 
> Yes, I meant why "project-major-minor" (gtk-2-17) when you already
> know 'project'. What information would be lost with a '2-17' branch
> name?

Why should we change a policy we had for ages and which works fine?
Note that for GNOME modules specifically, having gnome-2-26 is important
since it makes it clear that this is a branch for GNOME 2.26. Even if
gvfs is at version 1.2, for example.

> >> In fact, AFAIK at any given time GNOME projects have at most two lines
> >> of development. When GTK+ 2.17 is released, work on 2.16 is continued,
> >> but not on 2.15, so what is the point of keeping the 'gtk-2-15'
> >> branch? (or gtk-2-14) In reality you only have a 'master' and a
> >> sometimes a 'devel' branch.
> >>
> >
> > You should read http://live.gnome.org/MaintainersCorner#branches
> 
> Just read it. I'm not sure exactly what you wanted to highlight.
> 
> > Stable branches are useful! Most projects have mostly stable branches, afaik.
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. My
> understanding is that in most projects there's only one 'stable'
> branch, as in "the most stable branch we have at the moment". Some
> projects have 'devel' ("we are currently working on it, but it's not
> that sable") and some have 'next' ("this is what you'll get on the
> next big release, it's probably stable enough").
> 
> After reading that link (and some email searching), I think you do a
> "branching" process where you create a branch for the stable release
> and keep the development on the "master" branch. In that case I would
> suggest instead of creating a "gtk-2-16" branch just use a "stable"
> branch, which will jump (or merge) from what you now call "gtk-2-14"
> to "gtk-2-16" when you do this branching process. The "gtk-2-14"
> commits won't be lost as long as they are tagged.

Some people are using the old stable branches, so we definitely want to
keep them. While GNOME only officially supports only one stable branch
at any time (which is what you seem to propose), enabling people to do
more than that is a good thing.

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.