> On 11 Sep 2016, at 7:13 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > > On 9/10/2016 12:55 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:40:48AM +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> Recent events make it clear we will have to release OpenOffice 4.1.3 sooner >>> or later, with some duplication of work with respect to 4.1.2-patch1 but >>> with more clarity for those who couldn't see that we made a release last >>> month. >>> >>> I'll thus consider the AOO410 branch to be open again for the needed >>> structural fixes, like version numbering and similar. And I can take care of >>> fixing version numbers as I already did for 4.1.2. >> >> I'd suggest we create a AOO413 branch, as suggested on private@. >> >> Also, if the procedure didn't change, we should stick to the rule that >> only code with a bug and release blocker flag approved by the Release >> Manager can be checked in that branch; that is: if you want to include >> changes in the AOO413 branch: >> >> 1) open a bug >> 2) request releaser blocker status >> 3) only once the release manager approves the release blocker status, >> commit your changes > > Andrea argues that it is traditional to put all point releases in the same > branch. Following that tradition we would use AOO410 for all 4.1.x releases. > > The reasons are lost in the mists of antiquity. The argument for carrying on > that way for now is that there may be people following AOO410 and doing > downstream packaging that depend on that behaviour.
I really don’t get that reasoning. I’d like examples to understand why people downstream would be using a branch in the first place. If anything, I’d half expect downstream to depend on the ‘Tag’ that a release was based on , not the branch (that has since changed.) Tags seem to be labelled correctly, branches should follow suit. But I’ll leave it to you guys. Gav… Tags:- .. <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/> AOO340/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO340/> AOO341/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO341/> AOO400/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO400/> AOO401/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO401/> AOO410/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO410/> AOO410_Beta/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO410_Beta/> AOO411/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO411/> AOO412/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO412/> AOO4121/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/AOO4121/> SNAPSHOT/ <https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/tags/SNAPSHOT/> All those 41* tags (5 of them) were based on using the same 410 branch. > > A possible compromise is to treat AOO410 as you recommend for AOO413 from now > on. We would still create AOO414, which I see as being necessary to become > more agile. We should overlap testing, voting, and uploading of 4.1.3 with > preparation of 4.1.4. Using the same branch for both would not be good. > > I can go either way on this. > > Patricia > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
