On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> wrote: > On 11/18/15 Nov 18 -3:32 PM, Faré wrote: >> OK, so here is a concrete proposal for branch names: >> * "master" for the latest uncontroversial developments, which will become 3.2 >> * various topic branches to hold controversial or incomplete changes >> * "release" for the latest release, which will remain 3.1 then become 3.2 >> * "3.1" for work continued work on ASDF 3.1 after master becomes 3.2 >> * "release-3.1" for stable releases of ASDF 3.1 after release becomes 3.2 > > This sounds mostly ok. I kind of prefer "stable" to "3.1" for continued > work on the 3.1 series. > > Rationale: "stable" can't be confused with one of our release tags, the > way a numerical branch name could be. > > I hadn't thought about there being continued stable releases after we > move release to 3.2. Hmmmmm..... > Yeah, there's an awkward merge or rebase happening when "stable" jumps from 3.1 to 3.2, whereas no such jump happens if old branches have numbered names and are forked off a master that keeps going forward.
> One more open question: > > If we move master to be the 3.2 series, then how do we number the > interim versions? Previously, 3.1.x.y has been a release candidate for > 3.1.x+1, which has been only mildly awkward. But if we start version > numbering candidates for the next release this way, then testing with > :version really won't work, and there's some danger of version numbering > collisions between stable and testing. > > We could have m.n.0.[1-] be release candidates for m.n, and just always > have the final release be m.n.1, which would keep the :VERSION tests > working. > That's more or less what we ended doing with 3.1. PS: I removed some of the ancient ASDF 2 compatibility and code to upgrade from it in a fine-grained way — now all implementations "punt" when upgrading from asdf 2, i.e. rename away the old asdf package without trying to reuse its symbols, variables, functions. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org It's possible to program a computer in English. It's also possible to make an airplane controlled by reins and spurs. — John McCarthy