Re: [GNC-dev] Bye-bye Unstable
Op donderdag 19 april 2018 17:15:50 CEST schreef Eric Siegerman: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:29:23AM +0200, Geert Janssens wrote: > > In the 2.7 > > development cycle we experimented with an extra "unstable" *branch* to do > > the unstable releases from. > > Which is pretty standard practice -- except for the name. > Intuitively, I'd expect a branch called "unstable" to be *less* > stable than master, not more so. Perhaps this caused some of the > confusion that has been expressed both here and in the similar > thread over in -user. > > I imagine the branch got its name as the source of the "unstable" > release series, but still... > Indeed. > > For future unstable releases we will probably just do > > them from the master branch instead and forget an unstable branch ever > > existed. > > Makes sense. Since (as it appeared to me as a lurker) the whole > team switched over to stabilization mode, with dev work toward > 4.x on hold for the duration, the additional branch likely didn't > add much value. But should you ever change your minds, may I > suggest calling the third branch "stabilization" -- or a shorter > quasi-synonym, e.g. "beta". > Good idea. Geert ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: [GNC-dev] Bye-bye Unstable
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:29:23AM +0200, Geert Janssens wrote: > In the 2.7 > development cycle we experimented with an extra "unstable" *branch* to do the > unstable releases from. Which is pretty standard practice -- except for the name. Intuitively, I'd expect a branch called "unstable" to be *less* stable than master, not more so. Perhaps this caused some of the confusion that has been expressed both here and in the similar thread over in -user. I imagine the branch got its name as the source of the "unstable" release series, but still... > For future unstable releases we will probably just do > them from the master branch instead and forget an unstable branch ever > existed. Makes sense. Since (as it appeared to me as a lurker) the whole team switched over to stabilization mode, with dev work toward 4.x on hold for the duration, the additional branch likely didn't add much value. But should you ever change your minds, may I suggest calling the third branch "stabilization" -- or a shorter quasi-synonym, e.g. "beta". - Eric ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: [GNC-dev] Bye-bye Unstable
Op woensdag 18 april 2018 09:58:24 CEST schreef Wm via gnucash-devel: > On 16/04/2018 17:40, Geert Janssens wrote: > > Op maandag 16 april 2018 12:33:53 CEST schreef Robert Fewell: > >> Just trying to get myself straight for going forward. > >> maint is now for bug fixes on version 3.0 > >> master is for new stuff that would go into 4.0 but may be backported to > >> 3.x > >> if appropriate > > > > Mostly. We normally don't "backport". If something is wanted on maint, it > > should be committed to maint first and merged into master afterwards. > > > > A real backport should only happen if that was forgotten, but that should > > really be an exception. > > Bob probably didn't *really* mean "backport". My guess is he's just > trying to work out what master | maint | 3.0 | 3.x | something else mean > now in ordinary terms. > > I can't figure it out either. maint and master are git *branches*, so things you can check out, build, use to make changes and submit new commits. 3.0 is a release number which in git will be represented with a *tag*. You can also check these out, but you can't start development from there (strictly speaking you can, but that would be much more complicated and off topic here). The only reason to check out a version number is to build a release version of gnucash. And even then, most releases are built from a tarball, for which you find a link in each release announcement. 3.x is not really a thing in git. It's mostly a term we use to represent all releases that will ever be generated starting with 3. Then there is a distinction between stable and unstable (development) releases. The big difference git-wise is that stable releases always start from a commit on the maint branch while unstable releases will not. In the 2.7 development cycle we experimented with an extra "unstable" *branch* to do the unstable releases from. For future unstable releases we will probably just do them from the master branch instead and forget an unstable branch ever existed. We also use a specific versioning scheme for unstable *releases* which has changed with the release of 3.0. Before 3.0 release numbers had 3 components. Unstable releases would have an odd middle component. 2.4.5 must be a stable release because the middle component (4) is even. 2.7.6 must be an unstable release because the middle component (7) is odd. As of 3.0 release numbers will only have two components. Unstable releases will be marked by a second component being 900 or more. So 3.1, 3.15 and even 3.899 will be stable releases if we ever get that far in the numbering (don't expect this to be like that). 3.900, 3.915 and so on will be unstable releases leading up to the 4.0 new stable release somewhere in the future. > > >> Is master version 3.99, it appears to be 3.0 still and does show the > >> build > >> warning ? > > > > Not 3.99. With the new numbering scheme it should become 3.900, leaving us > > with 99 beta release numbers before 4.0. > > I'd like to join Bob and say I'm also not understanding this. > > I think what I am asking is: > > could you please relate the git commands to versions people understand. > https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Git#Branches Compared to before the 3.0 release the only thing that has changed is what releases will happen from which branch. has changed really, except for the version numbers those branches are linked to. "maint" and "master" are abstract concepts that are not tied to the same version all the time. I'm not sure how I can make that clearer. Do you have a specific question you want to see answered ? Geert ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: [GNC-dev] Bye-bye Unstable
On 16/04/2018 17:40, Geert Janssens wrote: Op maandag 16 april 2018 12:33:53 CEST schreef Robert Fewell: Just trying to get myself straight for going forward. maint is now for bug fixes on version 3.0 master is for new stuff that would go into 4.0 but may be backported to 3.x if appropriate Mostly. We normally don't "backport". If something is wanted on maint, it should be committed to maint first and merged into master afterwards. A real backport should only happen if that was forgotten, but that should really be an exception. Bob probably didn't *really* mean "backport". My guess is he's just trying to work out what master | maint | 3.0 | 3.x | something else mean now in ordinary terms. I can't figure it out either. Is master version 3.99, it appears to be 3.0 still and does show the build warning ? Not 3.99. With the new numbering scheme it should become 3.900, leaving us with 99 beta release numbers before 4.0. I'd like to join Bob and say I'm also not understanding this. I think what I am asking is: could you please relate the git commands to versions people understand. Maybe Bob was asking something different, if so, my apols to him. -- Wm ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: [GNC-dev] Bye-bye Unstable
Op maandag 16 april 2018 12:33:53 CEST schreef Robert Fewell: > Just trying to get myself straight for going forward. > maint is now for bug fixes on version 3.0 > master is for new stuff that would go into 4.0 but may be backported to 3.x > if appropriate > Mostly. We normally don't "backport". If something is wanted on maint, it should be committed to maint first and merged into master afterwards. A real backport should only happen if that was forgotten, but that should really be an exception. > Is master version 3.99, it appears to be 3.0 still and does show the build > warning ? Not 3.99. With the new numbering scheme it should become 3.900, leaving us with 99 beta release numbers before 4.0. Geert ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: [GNC-dev] Bye-bye Unstable
Just trying to get myself straight for going forward. maint is now for bug fixes on version 3.0 master is for new stuff that would go into 4.0 but may be backported to 3.x if appropriate Is master version 3.99, it appears to be 3.0 still and does show the build warning ? Bob On 15 April 2018 at 01:02, John Ralls wrote: > Fellow Developers, > > As long promised (threatened?) I've just merged unstable into maint and > deleted unstable. In general you can just pull as usual and your branch > will be updated. > > If you have unpushed commits in a local unstable branch, rebase that > branch onto maint after pulling maint. > > If you have unpushed commits in a local maint branch: > If you want to port them to 3.x, > git branch saved-maint > git fetch > git reset --hard origin/maint > > Because of the directory structure changes you won't be able to > cherry-pick or merge your saved-maint commits. Your best bet is to make > patches with git format-patch and then edit the paths. > > Regards, > John Ralls > > ___ > gnucash-devel mailing list > gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel > ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
[GNC-dev] Bye-bye Unstable
Fellow Developers, As long promised (threatened?) I've just merged unstable into maint and deleted unstable. In general you can just pull as usual and your branch will be updated. If you have unpushed commits in a local unstable branch, rebase that branch onto maint after pulling maint. If you have unpushed commits in a local maint branch: If you want to port them to 3.x, git branch saved-maint git fetch git reset --hard origin/maint Because of the directory structure changes you won't be able to cherry-pick or merge your saved-maint commits. Your best bet is to make patches with git format-patch and then edit the paths. Regards, John Ralls ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
