> This requires to branch share too, tomahawk head already requires stuff > from shared head which is not in the 2.0.0 release. > I already expressed my thoughts about this in another post: Every time > we release core or tomahawk we have to branch shared too.
> The result will be e.g > shared 2.0.0 for core 1.1.2 > shared 2.0.1 for tomahawk 1.1.2 > shared 2.0.2 for core 1.1.3 > and so on .... Yes that's correct (and perfectly acceptable IMO) > Does this mean, we have to work on the branch again if we have something > to change/enhance? > Then my -1 to do this, we can start the TCK on the nightly too - and fix > the problems there, once the TCK pass and there is sufficient new stuff > - we branch. > IMHO this might reduce the need to merge down stuff, which is something > (the merge down) letting me shudder. It might be a good idea to test the latest nightly with the TCK before branching. That would reduce merging problems. I still think we always need to branch before a release so we make sure that no last minute problems are created by all of the ongoing work. > I dont know much about the TCK, but maybe I have a machine where we can > setup the TCK to run on a daily - at least weekly basis. > Intel Xeon 2.8G HT with 2GB memory. The TCK will run in an VMWare Server > there. Should be sufficient, no? You should sign the NDA and get on the tck list so we can discuss. > Mario Sean
