On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 21:41 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote: > Alan Conway wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 13:50 +0100, Aidan Skinner wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Can you remind me the process that was agreed around branching? > >> What I recall us settling us on was "don't, not unless there's a > >> (customer money) gun to your head and it can't possibly wait until the > >> next release". > > > > What I recall us saying is "don't until you really need one". We need > > one if there is any post-M3 work going on during the freeze. I'm working > > on clustering code that is well decoupled but still poses a risk of me > > breaking the C++ broker. There may be others working on post-M3 work as > > well. > > > > I'd suggest we create an M3 branch and allow post-M3 work on trunk, > > merging M3 to trunk as we go. The alternative is to use trunk for M3 and > > create a post-M3-branch but that seems backwards to me. > > I thought what we said was that in general during a project-wide > release, most everyone should be focused stabilizing trunk, and that if > someone really really needs to do new feature development during that > period, they should create a feature branch.
OK, you've convinced me this might work out better. I suggest a single after_M3 branch for anyone doing post-M3 work so we don't have multiple independent feature branches to integrate after the freeze. After the freeze we can merge after_M3 back to trunk and delete the branch. Aidan can you create an after_M3 branch from the point we declare the trunk frozen? Cheers, Alan
