Andre Poenitz wrote: >> Of course, we don't have to release each time some new, but stable, >> addition is made to head, but can accumulate several changes. In fact, it >> sounds a bit like the way JMarc manages his stable branches. >> >> What do you think? > > We certainly need a means to handle different time scales for different > features, pet project, people, ... > > Your proposal makes sense, but I don't know how much extra effort it would > be. Ideally, "backporting" is a matter of five minutes if the changes are > fairly local, but I am not sure this holds in general.
Of course, this is the flaw in the argument, but until we try it we'll never know. > In any case, unless someone comes up with something more promising, I'd > like to give it a try. The current release handling is nothing I want to > endure another time. Indeed. Actually, we could turn it around and create a 'release' branch using exactly the same procedure as used by JMarc in his 'stable' branches. The only difference is that we have much more back porting. Moreover, if it turns out that people just continue developing in head when a release is being finalised, then karma is removed from head, forcing us to pay more attention to the release branch. This should be a last resort, but does illustrate that we can have a real degree of control. Angus
