On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:44:06 +0200, Petr Rockai wrote: > > - When we cut the 2.6.0 branch (here's the tricky bit), we create a > > new milestone object named 2.6.0 CURRENT and rename the 2.6.0 HEAD > > object (http://bugs.darcs.net/milestone3) to 2.7.0 HEAD. > now, the rename bit looks a bit worrying. That would mean that we need > to change all existing uses of 2.7.0 HEAD to 2.6.0 CURRENT, no?
Right, but that's actually done for us automatically when we push to the
new branch-2.6.
> So what's the rationale to not just create new 2.7.0 and just rename
> 2.6.0 HEAD to 2.6.0 CURRENT? At the branch point, the CURRENT inherits
> all fixes that were made in HEAD up to that moment.
Come to think of it, that *could* also work provided that cutting the
branch really is straightforwardly taking HEAD (and not say, starting
from the previous release branch). I think I like your plan better, so
I'll assume that for now.
> We just need to make sure that posthooks are updated on every milestone
> wibble. Hopefully, even if we don't do this immediately, no harm should
> happen as the milestones they refer to will have changed names in the
> meantime (2.6.0 HEAD would be 2.6.0 CURRENT, so HEAD won't accidentally
> mark things as resolved in 2.6.0 CURRENT post-branching...).
Right
> Other than this, I think the process is good to implement.
OK, one minor change is that I'll only leave an all caps tag on actual
stable, not on old versions (so that the important versions are visually
distinct), which I think is what you originally meant anyway
so 2.2.x
2.3.x
2.4.x STABLE
2.5.0 CURRENT
2.6.0 HEAD
3.0.0
I go!
--
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
