>With 1.6 approaching, now is a good time to rationalize our repo tagging >a bit. > >What I'm thinking is we get everything for 1.6 onto the head, then cut a >RELENG_1_6 branch. That will become the basis for the 1.6 release. In >the branch we only do what is necessary to get 1.6 out the door. I.e. >critical bug fixes, release notes, etc.
Well ... we were all over the place, part of that was the limitations imposed by CVS branch naming before. For 1.5 we had a branch named 1.5-release, and 1.5-RC1, 1.5-RC2, and finally 1.5. I think that naming is fine and we should stick with it. >Once the branch is cut, work can carry on on the head for what will be >1.7, and we will repeat as necessary for future releases. No objections here. >If that's agreeable, would everyone with outstanding code for 1.6 step >up with a brief description of what they need to commit, and an ETA? >Once everything is in I will take care of creating the branch. My outstanding changes are: - Rototilling part display in mhshow - No display of parts with a disposition of "attachment" - Creation of a mh-mime man page to tie nmh MIME handling together. Maybe ... 3 weeks for that all? Or maybe a month. >So in preparation for all this, if there are no objections, I would >like to declare a feature freeze on commits to the head, other than >any outstanding work that was already planned for 1.6 and is near >completion. After we cut the 1.6 branch we can open up the head again. Sounds good to me. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
