Re: Lets get branches names right this time (was: Re: Proposed release process/plans)
- From: Chema Celorio <chema ximian com>
- To: Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>
- Cc: Gediminas Paulauskas <menesis delfi lt>, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, desktop-devel-list gnome org, gnome-hackers gnome org
- Subject: Re: Lets get branches names right this time (was: Re: Proposed release process/plans)
- Date: 13 Jun 2002 12:38:23 -0500
On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 12:27, Bill Haneman wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 17:49, Gediminas Paulauskas wrote:
> > I imagine gnome-2-0-0 to live a very short period of time (until gnome
> > 2.0.0 is released), and gnome-2-0 to live approx 6 months (until gnome
> > 2.2.0 is released), and make 2.0.x releases from it.
> > I.e. if you have a patch which is too risky to put in a release
> > approaching this week, put it into gnome-2-0, and if everything is OK,
> > you will release it next time (2.0.1). If it is OK for stable, put it
> > into gnome-2-0-0. If it's a new great feature, commit this only to HEAD.
> > I have drawn a branch/tag/anchor naming scheme for gnome 2.x.x releases
> Thanks Gediminas, the diagram is very clear and unambiguous.
> 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).
] [Thread Prev