David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying or
moving to tags/1.1.x Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibly be added
to branches/1.1, this should not cause problems. The release
manager gets say over what goes into a release, they can revert
changes they don't want in the release. I think the copy to
branches/1.1.x just adds steps for no gain.
I would upgrade this to a -1 on my part.
Think you're getting kind of nit-picky on what you think is easiest
for a release manager to do. I'd rather see us simply agree on what
the end result should be.
IMHO, if a release manager wants to copy into a temp location while
they finalize the release (which can take days) to remove the risk
of having to roll back accidental changes, that's fine.
While I agree with your statements, I think that the point that DJ
and I were trying to make was that there is no need for a
branches/1.1.x branch as a temp location if no one is modifying
branches/1.1. This is the case if we only put bug fixes into 1.x
branches.
Then you both missed the beginning of this thread where Aaron was
saying "i want to update branches/1.1 with a fix for 1.1.1, where did
it go?" The issue is, we haven't released 1.1 yet and no one should
be updating that source till then.
Hence the idea to copy 1.1 aside as 1.1.0 so the activities of
creating, voting, and shipping 1.1 (which take about a week) could
happen in parallel to bug fixing 1.1.1.
That sounds really dangerous to me.
We're adding fixes to a release that hasn't gone out yet?
Regards,
Alan
