On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:08 AM, Brice Figureau wrote: > > On 11/08/09 2:43, Luke Kanies wrote: >> On Aug 10, 2009, at 3:16 PM, James Turnbull wrote: >> >>> Hi all >>> >>> I just wanted to query consider its getting close how we planned to >>> manage Git after 0.25.0. My plan (and obviously open to input and >>> Luke >>> has a different view, etc, etc, :)) was: >>> >>> Branch master to 0.25.x. The 0.25.x branch continue on as the home >>> for >>> fixes for the 0.25.x releases - .1, .2, etc. The master branch >>> would >>> remain "development" as such and would be targeted at 0.26.0. >>> >>> We would merge in fixes back and forth when required from master and >>> 0.25.x. >>> >>> Thoughts? Doctrinal arguments? >> >> IMO, 'master' should always be the branch we expect people to submit >> code against, which to me means stable. > > I'm not sure that we have the same definition of stable. > For me stable means doesn't move forward, has no new features but only > critical bug fixes (ie the debian definition of stable). > And I'm not sure it's a good idea to have people committing against > this > branch, we'll risk to have no new features ever :-)
It's true that my definition of stable is a bit skewed, and we should be leaning more toward the Debian definition. Good point. > > But if you mean stable as a byproduct of the next branch in which > we'll > merge the new features, then we certainly agree. I guess my main point is that we spent a lot of time where people were expected to clone a git repo, check out the 0.24.x branch, and develop there, and it worked really poorly. Whatever process we come up with must involve the default branch being the one people develop against, whatever that means for us. > >> I think we should move to the often-recreated 'next' branch as we >> discussed, probably with an additional 'dev' branch, so we can try >> code out in one of these branches for a while and remove it if it >> doesn't work (without having to revoke code). > > I like this plan, the question is how much burden it will add on James > shoulders? which we should compare to the benefits. I agree. I think appropriate tooling can get us really close, but of course I don't really know that. > > Anyway, I'll adapt my work to the chosen scheme :-) > -- > Brice Figureau > My Blog: http://www.masterzen.fr/ > > > > -- When I die, I want go out just like my grandfather, in his sleep, peaceful and quiet...not kicking and screaming like the other guys in his car. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
