On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Adrian Buehlmann<adr...@cadifra.com> wrote:
> 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?
The difference is that three years from now the changes made while
building 0.9 will be tagged as 0.9 changes. That may be a small
difference, but I would like to make an educated choice about which
way we do this. So I need to weigh it against the benefits of late
branching.
> What's the default branch intended for?
There's no hard-fast rule that says you must have a default branch.
But I do understand that hg treats it specially in some instances.
--
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list
Tortoisehg-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
