On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:12, Chris Cannam wrote: > > I suggest we aim to produce the following releases: > > [...]
I'm ok with this part. > To this end, in CVS we: > > * Create a bugfix branch (i.e. just make the usual release tag a branch > tag), so that (if required!) we can do a 1.2.4 and subsequent releases that > include nothing new except bugfixes. > > * Also create a new features branch for 1.3. I'll manage this branch. It > probably won't see development work committed directly to it, instead I'll > do piece by piece merging from HEAD. Probably. > > * Merge the "experiments" branch across to HEAD. We could even merge the > guitar tab branch as well -- what do you think? Haven't heard anything > from Stephen on here for a while. HEAD will then ultimately become 1.4 or > 1.5. This part I'm less sure about. I agree with the stable/bugfix branch, but I'm reluctant about having both a 1.3 branch along with a development HEAD. I think I prefer the idea of HEAD remaining relatively buildable and useable, even though keeping "really dangerous" stuff in seperate dedicated branches has proven not to be very effective. So I'd be more in favor of the usual stable-branch/devel-HEAD scheme, with 1.[3-5] all being made in HEAD. -- Guillaume. http://www.telegraph-road.org ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
