On 10/29/07, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jason Merrill wrote: > > Andrew MacLeod wrote: > >> But yes, Id still be in favour of trying this or anything else which > >> might help. Cut a release branch, and simply refuse to open stage 1 > >> until we release. > > > > I think I prefer Richard's suggestion of not branching until we're > > ready to make the .0 release. The effect should be the same except > > that people don't have to deal with checking patches in on the branch > > vs. the trunk until after 4.3.0 goes out. > > Sure, I think it boils down to the same thing from a conceptual point of > view, but perhaps the nitty gritty details are easier if you keep it as > mainline so we dont have to check everything into 2 branches. Bottom > line is you freeze development until its time to release.
Well... this is the point of having stage3 ;) Of course work goes on on branches. One point of essentially freezing mainline until the release is to not pessimize people fixing bugs for the release instead of doing work on the already-open-after-branching stage1. This theoretically would allow shortening stage1 drastically (to lets say 2 weeks of branch merging and another 4 weeks of general "patches") to get back to a 6 month release cycle (I personally think the each-stage-is-2-month is not realistic). Richard.
