Hi Achim, Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes:
> It seemed to work well until Bastien made a mistake because the release > script wasn't properly adapted and digged the hole deeper while trying > to fix it (too) quickly. Maint is good again, master still needs a few > more touches. This should be all right now -- thanks again! >> If the gain is greater than the pain then somebody needs to clue me up. > > The argument is the same as before: master contains changes that > introduce new features and may break compatibility while maint should > only contain bugfixes. This is important because org also needs to > respect Emacs' release schedule (and synchronize with the bzr repo they > use), which generally means that they will accept bugfixes, but no new > features during certain times (like right now). See my email about the new git workflow: I want to have a branch dedicated to releases. I think it will make things way more readable and manageable. > The other development > model is to develop new stuff in feature branches and those tend not to > get tested too well before going mainline. We already use dedicated branch for development sometimes -- see the branch for Max/Carsten new feature. But you're right in saying that I want to keep the majority of development happening in master. > Ultimately it's Bastiens' call. If he decides to go back to the single > branch model, he'll have to do much more tedious manual work to keep org > in sync with Emacs and when doing bugfix releases. With the old model, the *only* reason for having maint was the Emacs sync issue. Now the reason is to clarify the release process. Best, -- Bastien
