On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Paul Melis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would there be a single stable branch and one development one? I.e. when 2.6 > would come out it would supersede 2.4?
Each stable series would be independent. A new stable release such as 2.6.0 would become the main stable branch and it's own series but it wouldn't replace 2.4.0 and it's own series. I'd imagine that users might still want to fixes applied to a previous stable release if that's the version that their app is shipping against, so a 2.4.1 could come out, then 2.6.0, then another patch to 2.4 would bring it to 2.4.2, then later patch to 2.6.0 would bring its own series to 2.6.1. >> If I were to tag a 2.4.1 right now I'd just use SVN as I don't have >> the time to review all the different changes and back porting them to >> 2.4. >> > > But that doesn't really solve this on the long term, does it. This discussion is looking to what we might need to do to solve the long term maintenance of stable releases, as well as the immediate case of what to do about 2.4.1. Right now we have no formal system for maintaining stable releases, as long as we start moving towards some system then I'm happy, but we have to start moving in this direction even if we just take baby steps. > To be able to > have easily manageable stable branches would mean branching the trunk just > before a new minor stable release and then backporting fixes and small > additions from the trunk to work up to each new point release on the stable > branch. I'd suggest that a 2.6.x series starts with 2.6.0 and branches this to make the base for 2.6.1, then this branch gets patches applied to it from trunk or perhaps separate patches that trunk won't have. It might be that trunk then takes fixes from these branches. For the 2.4.x series we either use the 2.4.0 branch as a base, or 2.5.1 or trunk. The horse has bolted a bit already on the 2.4 series as we are already into the 2.5.x developer series so it's a bit of unusual situation - the proposed system of stable developer series maintenance is rather late coming. I don't mind if the 2.4.x gets off to a bit of ad-hoc start, its better that it gets off to start than to just die a death as just another nice idea that no-one had time to make happen. Robert. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
