On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Adrian Buehlmann<adr...@cadifra.com> wrote:
> On 24.07.2009 17:58, Steve Borho wrote:
>> Now that 0.8.1 is out the door, it's time to concentrate on 0.9.
>>
>> The first large steps will be happening soon. I am going to apply
>> names to the two existing lines of development. The 0.8 line of
>> development, which is present in both the stable and crew
>> repositories, will be given a branch name of '0.8'. The 0.9 line of
>> development, which is only present on the crew repository, will be
>> given a branch name of '0.9'.
>
> I think setting a branch name for 0.9 *now* is rather bad idea, IMHO.
> This should simply be the default branch now.
>
> Main development ("trunk") should happen in default branch.
>
> This also fits with what you get when you do a fresh clone: Mercurial
> updates to the tip of default branch.
>
> Feature freeze of 0.9 should be the earliest birthday of the 0.9 branch.
There do seem to be two schools of thought about branches. One is for
release "trains" that start immediately after the current branch goes
stable. The other is to have a main trunk for continual development
and for branches to be created when you want to make a release.
In practice, the only difference seems to be that the development
leading up to the each release is not on any branch. Do you prefer
the development trunk approach for the semantics of branch == "bug
fixes only" and default/trunk == "where features get added"?
--
Steve Borho
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list
Tortoisehg-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
