On 05/31/2012 01:35 PM, David Nalley wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Robert Schweikert<rjsch...@suse.com> wrote:
On 05/31/2012 12:35 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote:
The master branch hasn't diverged much from the 3.0.x branch at this
point. I can't name any divergence off the top of my head. I would expect
3.0.x to be more stable, but if there is another reason to go forth with
master then I wouldn't stop that for stability reasons.
New features going to master for 4.1.x (though our focus should really
be on
getting an ASF-acceptable release out) Rename the 3.0.x branch to 4.0.x
to
reflect reality.
Renaming the branch will create confusion. The previous 3.0.x releases
have already been done off of it so all the committers (and anyone else that
has been looking at the code) are expecting this to be the 3.0.x release
set. We could plausibly cut a 4.0.0 and future 4.0.x releases off the 3.0.x
branch. That is a little odd but (IMO) less confusing than renaming the
branch out from under people.
We could also take a 4.0.x branch off 3.0.x or master. That leaves open
the option of a later 3.0.x release on the 3.0.x branch. That seems the
cleanest approach to me, but it would add some additional branch management
overhead if fixes are needed in both 3.0.x and 4.0.x.
I might have a slight preference to branching 4.0.x off master. Then we
would establish a pattern that major releases get branched from master, as
was done for 3.0.0 and 4.0.0. This would extend naturally into 5.0.0, etc.
and is easy to explain to new committers.
I fully agree with Kevin. Branching 4.0.x off 3.0.x instead of master is
confusing. We should always branch major release branches off master. This
does not mean we have to branch 4.0.x of HEAD in master, we can choose an
earlier commit in master if there is concern that HEAD has some
instabilities.
My $0.02
Robert
OK - I can see the logic in that. Soooo - do we need the 3.0.x branch
around anymore? Or perhaps better put - do we intend to use it - even
if we don't purge it?
Well, that's kind off a Citrix question. Is Citrix interested in having
a public branch to work in? From a community perspective it woudl appear
that only the master branch is of interest plus any feature branches
that are public.
A couple of follow on questions - when should we
branch master to build 4.0.x?
I am generally in favor of a "branch as late as possible" model to avoid
duplicate work (2 commits). However there are also good reasons to
"branch early" as this model tends to have less impact on new feature
development. For the first go around, intended mostly for "clean up
tasks" the branch timing is probably less important.
Later,
Robert
--
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX
Tech Lead
rjsch...@suse.com
rschw...@ca.ibm.com
781-464-8147
