Frank Warmerdam wrote: > Charlie Savage wrote: >> >>>> Are we going to keep fixing bugs in branches/3.0.0, following similar >>>> procedure as GDAL does? >>> >>> Mateusz, >>> >>> Charlie seems to doubt the need for this, but I think it is good for >>> us to >>> treat 3.0 as a stable branch so we can put out a 3.0.1 if we fine some >>> significant errors in the next few months before Ben's (3.1) work is >>> complete. >> >> Its not that I doubt its a good idea. Its that I doubt there are the >> people to actually maintain the branch. If there are, then by all >> means there should be a branch. > > Charlie, > > I guess I'm optimistic that the osgeo transition will also correspond with > a broader and more "enabled" developer community. But honestly, it does > not seem likely there will be a lot of activity in the stable branch.
I second Frank's opinion. After a few months of branch-based GDAL maintenance, I can say it's not a hassle at all to submit fixes to trunk and to stable branch, if a fix is dedicated to stable branch. The only thing that needs to be kept in mind is to remember to review ticket and set milestone properly in Trac, to avoid ambiguities. Short example of the process: - a bug has been reported for 3.0.0 - review if fix is safe for stable branch to target 3.0.1 -- then set mileston to 3.0.1 (stable branch) or to new release (3.1.0 or may be 4.0.0, depending on versioning scheme) - if it is safe: -- commit to both trunk and branches/3.0.0 - if not safe (ie. because changeset is too huge, etc.) -- commit to trunk only and set $ cd trunk $ svn ci -m "Fix for #" Revision 12 $ cd ../branches/3.0.0 $ svn merge -r 11:12 http://svn.osgeo.org/geos/trunk/ $ svn ci -m "Ported fix for # to stable branch" Revision 13 Cheers -- Mateusz Loskot http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
