On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 05:03:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 04:26:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Well that's what happened - someone started 2.067. What's the
advantage of doing this? Now we need to worry about master and
2.067 instead of just master. -- Andrei
Well, what you do at that point is just fix all of the
regressions on the branch, and when it's ready you do another
release. You don't put anything else on it. All of the normal
dev work goes on master. And some point after the branch has
been released as the next release, you branch again.
Now, unless we have enough regressions on master that it's
going to take us over a month to fix them, I think that
branching right after releasing is a bit much, though if some
of the regressions are bad enough, maybe it would make sense to
release faster. And given how long we've been trying to get
2.066 ready after branching it and how much work has been done
on master since then, maybe it makes sense. I don't know.
I would have thought though that we'd aim to branch something
like 2 to 4 weeks after releasing and then take about a month
to make sure that all regressions are fixed so that we get a
release about every two months. All the major dev work just
continues on master, and it'll end up on a branch about every
two months staggered from when that branch gets released as an
official release.
Certainly, aiming for something along those lines would get us
faster releases than we've been doing. We've been waiting way
too long to branch and then been rather slow about getting
through all of the regressions. By branching earlier, we should
be able to release more quickly.
- Jonathan M Davis
In that case, shouldn't it be 2.066.1?
