Raja, On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Raja Pullela <raja.pull...@citrix.com> wrote: > If we are using "Development" branch as a shadow branch for "Stable" - is not > worth going that route because the existing automation may not find all the > issues. As a result, "Stable" is not completely protected from breakage or > failure. > > "Stable" should have the last stable released code. > "Development" should be the release in progress and not a shadow branch for > "Stable" > There should be merges from "Stable" to "Development" if there are any > HOTFIX/Maintenance releases that get released from "Stable" before the > "Development"/Release in progress goes out > After QA completes testing, "Development" should get into "Stable" > Following the "development" merge into "Stable", cut a "Release" Branch > Any final bug fixes that are absolutely necessary before the Release, will > get fixed on the "Release" Branch > Release software from the "Release" Branch > After Release, "Release" Branch goes into "Stable" > From then onwards, "Stable" will have the new Release code
I could read your response both as a +1 and as a counter proposal. What is your point? We do not protect our users against breakage completely now and we will not in the future. Is your point that we should only change to something if that completely protects us from all failure? > A similar approach was discussed in the wikis/blogs shared by Rajani and > Sheng. Yes, and... can we, > work on a 'development' branch. > merge on a nightly basis to a stable branch given the status of 'development' > is 'passing' > branch release branches as 'x.y' from 'stable' > merge them back to 'stable' when stable and tag them as 'x.y.z'. > branch from 'x.y.z' when support branches need to be made as 'x.y' again do > not merge those back in principle but keep those around for users to play > with and because 'stable' and 'develop' continue </proposal> -- Daan
