On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Graham Percival <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The beauty of branching off is that nobody needs to hold off anything. >> You just continue to put stuff in master (2.15.0), and cherry-pick >> whatever needs to go to 2.14. > > I am pessimistic about this, but let's ask for volunteers. Who > wants to cherry-pick stuff? > > > The reason that I'm pessimistic is that we racked up a huge amount > of "technical debt" (i.e. bugs) during 2.11 and the early phase of > 2.13. I'm concerned that if we don't have regular releases, the > unstable branch is going to accumilate bugs. > > I am also too tired to fight over it right now, but I also think > that this is the wrong model of branching. There's basically two > ways: > 1. keep master in a "ready-to-release" mode at all times; any > serious bug gets reverted or fixed ASAP. Unstable development > happens on separate branches, which are merged to master when > they're ready. We are doing this, with the ready-to-release criterion being the regtest passing. I propose we stick to this schema. My proposal is that "ready-to-release" still is not strict enough for stable, so 2.14 version should be coming from something which moves slower than the master branch. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [email protected] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
