> > The only exception I would make to the "everything in 4.0" rule is for > documentation. I don't see any value in branching the docs, and I want to > make sure that we can keep updating the docs at a fast pace even as we're > deliberately slowing down the rate of change on the code. For this reason, I > would have all the docs work continue in master, so there would be no > additional gatekeeping there, just the usual review. Is everyone OK with > that? >
I've read this several times, and not sure that I understand.....Are you saying: that docs will continue to go into both 4.0 and master and will skip the gatekeeper? or that docs (e.g. the docs that will exist for 4.0) will happen only in master going forward? The latter concerns me, as we will release a source tarball whose docs won't match our 4.0 release docs. Presumably master will rapidly move on towards 4.1 docs after release, and we'll have no demonstrable way to hack on 4.0 docs or for downstreams to consume 4.0 docs or for us to produce translations of the exact 4.0 docs after they move on. In short my concern is: how do we produce a 'this is the source for docs that match this code release', and ensure that that point in time still exists 6 months down the road? --David
