On 24.07.2009 20:01, Steve Borho wrote:
> 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"?
I fail to see the point in answering this question.
What's the problem in simply continuing on default branch for non-0.8
stuff right now?
What's the default branch intended for?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list
Tortoisehg-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
