On Monday 15 July 2013 14:42:14 Sebastian Kügler wrote: > - It will likely be impossible to merge frameworks into master later
This is complete FUD. If you regularly merge bugfixes from master to frameworks (surely you want to do that, right?), then merging frameworks to master is completely trivial. Proof: -asterix- dfaure 8:43 /d/kde/src/5/kf5-bis (master) >git merge origin/frameworks Updating 221fe25..8b30c2d Fast-forward [...huge list of files gets printed here...] Done. If, on the other hand, you don't merge bugfixes from master to frameworks, then you risk losing bugfixes, and we can still do one big merge with the right option to resolve any conflict by taking the code from frameworks. > - merging master into KF5 is not a 10 second job, it wasn't a walk in the > park > last time I did it (granted, that's hopefully alleviated with the freeze) Yes that's where the hard work is, and yes you can minimize the issue by not making many changes to the stable branch. But you have to do such merges anyway, whatever you call the branches. (In the alternative setup you mentionned, it would mean merging 4.11 into master -- different names, exactly the same work). An alternative in all this (mentionned by Sebas yesterday during the bus trip) would be to have master == stable, i.e. 4.11/4.12, and frameworks branches. It would still create a small surprise "where's the 4.11 branch?", but it wouldn't drastically change the meaning of "master" (especially when there seems to be consensus on "master should be stable" (i.e. useable for daily work)). I think this is less optimal, but I'm willing to accept it as a compromise. -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE, in particular KDE Frameworks 5
