Re: Lets get branches names right this time (was: Re: Proposed release process/plans)
- From: Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>
- To: Chema Celorio <chema ximian 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 18:39:57 +0100
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.
] [Thread Prev