On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:53 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Uh Janek? We have _never_ made a branch for stable releases until after > we reached a state of convergence. The problem is that in order to get > a stable release from a wobbly starting base, we need testers. If all > developers move on to the unstable branch and the unstable branch gets > extensive work, testing of the fixes required to get a release ready > will fall apart.
ok, i see your point. > After cutting the stable release branch, what goes in there are > documentation fixes, well-exposed cherrypicks of bug fixes, and reverts > of regressions. Basically stuff that is _certain_ to improve release > quality, judging from the beating it has seen in master because, like it > or not, that's what people are working with and looking at. If the > unstable branch gets _extensive_ changes, this approach falls down. Here's where my reasoning was flawed - i thought that even if the unstable branch will get extensive changes, it will be possible to cherry-pick stable stuff into stable branch. Hm. thanks for correcting me. Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
