On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 05:31:10PM +0200, Christian Ohm wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 September 2010 at 11:31, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:56:53AM -0400, buginator wrote:
>>> On 9/13/10, Christian Ohm  wrote:
>>>> How about doing 2.3.5.x releases for bugfixes only instead? So for
>>>> example we (finally) branch 2.3.5 now (and immediately push
>>>> CorvusCorax's projectile fixes in 2.3 for 2.3.6), tag (hopefully no
>>>> more) RCs from it, the release, and the 2.3.5.x fixes.
>>> I can live with this.
>> I don't think we have enough manpower to maintain two release
>> branches.
>>>> (Well, and there's the question of how well the bugfix only thing
>>>> will work out, I remember both the 2.2 and 2.3 jumps, and though
>>>> both times there was some interest in keeping the old line alive in
>>>> parallel for a while, in the end only the new version was
>>>> released.)
>>> This is true as well, and since we always lack the manpower to do
>>> the upkeep that is required, it is possible the same thing will
>>> happen with the purposed 2.3.5.x branch.
>>> We are going to end up with 3 testing versions, one for trunk (new
>>> features + bug fixes), one for 2.X (new features + bug fixes), and
>>> one for 2.3.5.x (bug fixes).
>>> It might not always be possible to just do testing in 2.X, since the
>>> new feature might skew the results.
>> Another radical suggestion: reducing 2.X branches to feature-frozen
>> branches, i.e. the only time to add new features would be when
>> creating a new 2.X branch.
> How's that different from what I proposed? Sounds about the same to
> me, except you use 2.x instead of 2.3.x.

Erm, I read 2.3.5.x, which sounds a bit like overkill to me.

"Good code is its own best documentation. As you're about to add a
 comment, ask yourself, 'How can I improve the code so that this comment
 isn't needed?' Improve the code and then document it to make it even
  -- Steve McConnell

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Warzone-dev mailing list

Reply via email to