On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 23:38, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> > The patches were not applied on the release branch which means they wont
> > be in the 4.0.* releases but will be in 4.1.* release.
>
> Just out of curiosity: was there a certain strategy behind not applying
> the patch to the release branch? We are currently redefining our release
> processes in-house, so I'm looking around what other people do. From
> what I've observed most teams do a "feature-freeze" at one point and
> only bug-fixes and security-patches are allowed to go into the release
> branch from then on. In this case it is a bit hard to tell if the patch
> was a bug-fix or a missing feature.
I don't think it was a deliberate choice to omit it - just an accident ;)
Usually I think what we should do (though not what we currently do) is have;
* major version branches (where all main work goes (usually HEAD) ie 4.X
* minor version branches (ie 4.0.X) where bugfixes and security patches can go
* micro version branches (ie 4.0.1) where only security patches get applied
Though it would be nice to release a phopenix soon with these things fixed.
Paul?
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
---------------------------------------------------
"Wise men don't need advice. Fools don't take it."
-Benjamin Franklin
---------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
