Paul Kelly wrote: > >> Ideally the 6.3-release branch would be a branch from 6.x-devel, as > >> that's how it's structured in CVS. But that may not be possible given > >> that it existed prior to the migration to SVN. > > > > I wonder if we should sort of re-do the 6.3-release branch. I am not > > aware of incompatible changes within HEAD yet. Maybe it is better > > to branch off again (say, to bulk merge from HEAD/trunk into the > > existing branch) to catch recent fixes for 6.3.0. > > If such a bulk merge from the HEAD to the (as it currently is) 6.3 release > branch could be done, I think that would be a good plan and the > 6.3-release branch could be renamed to e.g. 6.x-devel and development go > on there---then the 7.x big changes could start on the HEAD. > > Or the 6.3-release branch could be dumped (see below) and 6.x-devel > branched off the HEAD, leaving it free to be in effect "7.x-devel". > > My main concern/doubt is that I don't see why 6.3 needs to have a release > branch at all at this stage. I thought release branches were only for > stable releases where the functionality needs to be frozen. As 6.3.0 is > going to be a development (not stable) release, it makes sense to me for > it to be a direct snapshot off the development branch or HEAD - similar to > the way the 5.0.0pre releases were done in the dim and distant past. If we > decide that 6.3.1 is going to be a stable release, or we call it 6.4.0, or > whenever, *that* is when we should be creating a release branch, IMHO.
The main problem with making releases from the trunk is that if someone commits a change which ends up taking some time to get right, we either have to postpone releases or revert the change. If we have a separate branch, we can simply avoid merging that particular change. -- Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
