On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Nate Williams wrote:
Only in very rare cases do we run into a problem where we have to create
a branch. In that case, the developer responsible for the release
creates a branch from his checked out tree (there's no law against
creating a branch from sources that are
At 2:17 PM -0500 3/15/02, Robert Watson wrote:
My feeling is that at this point, we probably should just use
Perforce due to limitations in CVS.
This seems fine to me. I am uneasy about perforce in cases
where someone is developing something which is *meant* to be
merged back into the main
Murray Stokely wrote:
On March 15, a RELENG_5_0_DP1 branch will be created in CVS for
final release polishing. This will allow us to provide translated
release notes, sync up sysinstall and the package set, bump version
numbers, and tweak default diagnostic settings without further
[Trimming Cc list a little bit]
If memory serves me right, Peter Wemm wrote:
Actually, with my CVS hat on, I have a *huge* problem with this.
In the future, if you see such huge problems come up, a little more
advance notice might be nice. :-(
We have a large number of temporary repo
Bruce A. Mah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Differences of opinion on naming aside...the branch isn't supposed to
last long at all. The point is to provide a slightly polished snapshot
to the wider developer community. We can't do the QA/releng work on
HEAD without calling for a code freeze
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
I can't imagine why anyone would expect to cvsup this thing at some
point in the distant future
Rule number one of release engineering... user's will do all kinds
of wacky stuff that you would never expect them to do, and complain
bitterly when
On 15 Mar 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Bruce A. Mah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Differences of opinion on naming aside...the branch isn't supposed to
last long at all. The point is to provide a slightly polished snapshot
to the wider developer community. We can't do the QA/releng
Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's worth noting, BTW, that originally the release engineering team
planned to use Perforce for this to avoid the branch issue entirely,
minimize impact on the main tree, etc, but decided not to due to the high
volume of complaints on the topic.
If it
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 03:32:00AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Bruce A. Mah [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Differences of opinion on naming aside...the branch isn't supposed to
last long at all. The point is to provide a slightly polished snapshot
to the wider developer community. We
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 04:40:08PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
If this is going to be a static release (calling it RELENG_5_anything is
a mistake IMHO) then this isn't a big deal. But if people are expecting
it to have ongoing secirity fixes etc like we do with RELENG_4_5 etc then
we have a
10 matches
Mail list logo
