On 1/23/14, 2:01 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
I agree, I don't know what's wrong with what we had before:
1. All pull requests get merged to master
2. Create 2.065 branch
3. Cherry-pick from master to 2.065 as required
4. Tag 2.065.whatever as releases get done on that branch
Easy, simple. All these other procedures seem like massive
over-engineering to me.
Good to go... I for one did not see either of you weigh in on the
proposal when Brad Roberts made it
(http://forum.dlang.org/post/CAFU1Uzpm4DBADOxMjcJ_Guj1=t8bq4npb5oebadnbuqdd2i...@mail.gmail.com).
I decided to use it because, compared to the alternative of trying to
convince volunteers to do something they do not want to, it would be
much simpler for me to follow this scheme.
To me there is no difference between the two processes, except the
"we've always done it this way syndrome". Fixes are generated from
release tags into a hotfix branch. Once the fix is released, we merge it
back into master, remove the branch and move on. I am preparing both
releases and hotpicks so I don't see any extra work being generated for
the devs.
The only chance I see on your parts is the need to change the tester
scripts to point search for and test "hotfix" and "release" branches if
they exist. I'm not the person doing that so I might have an overly
simplified view of your processes but I really don't see the big deal.
Regards,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
