On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 05:28 +1200, Amos Jeffries wrote: > The merge queues need to be maintained manually. With this branch there > are going to be three to process and the more committers, the harder it > gets to sync them. Thats ignoring Henriks 2.x queues as well for the > cross-port features. > > When I started it took myself and Henrik a good week combined to sync > just the HEAD and 3.0 queues after everybody committed fixes. It still > takes me a few hours to check every time Guido commits his Windows bits > to 3.0. There were a non-zero number of regressions on both HEAD and > branch encountered during the sync.
Understood. What do you think is better: A) Branch and commit waiting stuff to trunk now. Deal with a large volume of complicated commit traffic between the 3.1 branch and trunk. B) Branch and commit waiting stuff later. Focus on 3.1 leftovers and stability without being distracted by cross-porting commit traffic. I would pick B, but since you are handling most of the commit traffic, I think it is your choice. > If other committers are needed I think some simple limits are needed to > make things easier: > > * branch commits MUST have a corresponding trunk commit. Branch gets > cherry-pick merge from trunk whenever possible. Back-ports if not. Agreed. The more new stuff enters trunk, the more time-consuming double-commits will become though. > * anything comitted that you didn't write. remember the Author: tags. Can somebody (or do we) use Author for copyright-related statements? If yes, then who wrote the code may be irrelevant in some cases. > * bug fixes for 3.0 stable still go down through maintainer. Sure. > * its hands off everybody except nominated maintainer once the stable > release is made. Further tweaking can be done in private sub-branches > and go in through trunk as normal when needed. Agreed. > I'm minded to add 'only the developers who are responsible for a new > feature can commit'. But I know there will be others who can fix some > bugs too. Right. There are many bugs/fixes that have no "feature" behind them. > I'm slightly more than half-convinced. It's much of a sameness as you > pointed out. I'm willing to trial it and see how things go for 3.1. Sounds good. (See, Kinkie, it worked this time! :-). I think the only big decision left is whether to branch first or stabilize first. Thank you, Alex.
