On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 15:05:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 12/16/12 6:15 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 12/15/2012 09:39 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Can we drop the LTS name ? It reminds me of ubuntu, and I
clearly hope
that
people promoting that idea don't plan to reproduce ubuntu's
scheme :
- it is not suitable for a programming language (as stated 3
time now,
so just
read before why I won't repeat it).
- ubuntu is notoriously unstable.
Call them "stable release cycles" if you like, which is what
they are
intended to be.
Just one tidbit of information: I talked to Walter and we want
to build into the process the ability to modify any particular
release. (One possibility is to do so as part of paid support
for large corporate users.) That means there needs to be one
branch per release.
Andrei
I don't see why that is a requirement (having a branch per
release).
We can still have a single stable branch with tags for releases
and when Walter needs to provide special customizations he can
always just branch off of the tagged release. This should be
Walter's business and not part of the "official" community
process.
in git terms, assuming we have a tagged release of 2.61
$ git checkout -b 2.61-partner 2.61
This branches off a new branch "2.61-partner" for the specific
partner modification based off the contents of the "2.61" release.
Also, this kinda messes with the notion of integration. A single
stable branch helps prevent "forgotten" bug-fixes. I.e a critical
bug was fixed on release N, what will ensure it will be included
in release N+1? If Release N+1 is on the same branch than the
bug-fix is included by default and prevented the need to perform
a manual operation (a merge) that could be forgotten.
