On 06/01/2012 10:55 AM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
Hi,
On 06/01/2012 04:37 PM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
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.
I don't get the Citrix question?
Cirtix has released/is releasing their product from the 3.0.x branch. It
is AFAIK immaterial to the community. However, if Citrix is interested
in keeping the 3.0.x branch in the open on the Apache git server, the
community should not remove the branch as Cirtrix is after all also a
member of the community.
Thus the Citrix connection and the relevance to this discussion.
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
