Am 05.11.26 um 21:43 schrieb Arrigo Marchiori via dev:
On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 06:52:47PM +0100, Marcus wrote:
Am 05.11.26 um 12:14 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Since the focus is on getting AOO5 out, we should assume that anything added to
`trunk` is a candidate for backport to `AOO50X`.
If there are long-term, "experimental" work efforts, then we don't want to stop
them, but, IMO at least, maybe they should be done in branches off of `trunk` and not
folded _into_ trunk. One reason why work on 4.2.X stagnated was because of that exact
reason: that trunk and AOO42X just diverged way, way too much.
Does that make sense?
in theory yes.
It makes sense to me too.
I think we could also accept force-pushes to such separate
branches... but that may be worth a separate discussion.
It would work good when every dev thinks / remember always
and in every situation this role - also in 12 month.
I am not sure I understand what you mean?
at the moment every dev is committing in the branch on his/her own.
With the new role it has to be reviewed and without an approval it is
not allowed (or maybe technically not possible) to commit, e.g., into
trunk or AOO50X.
To support this, maybe it be better when we have a role that takes care of
the release management in general.
One task is to keep an eye on the commits of every branch inkl. trunk.
As an increase, every dev has to ask if committing / merging in a branch is
ok, before doing so.
Pull requests should be issued in the Review-then-Commit spirit and
thus serve to this purpose... shouldn't they?
Yes, should. But is this now done with every commit? ;-)
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
