Re: Branching off 2.2

>
> OK, assume we branch now:
>
> - Developers will continue to fix bugs, like they always do
> - Maybe not as much as without a branch, but it is their spare time and
> we want the dev people to be as happy as possible. 'They' are clearly
> not right now
>
> Hence I think *not branching* is doing more harm than branching.
>
> Any good arguments against branching? If not, then I'll branch ASAP.
>

We should get a consesus amongst the candidates to maintain 2.2 branch
(hub,mg,uwog others...) to actually maintain the 2.2 branch. ie Be
prepared to backport fixes to 2.2, do periodic releases and keep it
generally happy.

Also we should work out a consesus for applying bug fixes.

Some options we have would be:

1. Fix bugs in HEAD and ask 2.2 maintainers to backport.
2. Fix bugs in STABLE and ask a new volenteer to forward port.
3. Fix bugs in BOTH with a single commit.

From my perspective I would prefer 1.

I know hub has expressed a desire for us to use 2. Mark has argued against
this.

I think 3 has the potential for divergences and to slow down development.
I guess for 3 to work dev's must maintain current STABLE and HEAD builds,
apply fixes to both and test both before committing. One could argue that
this is likely to produce better bug fixes at the expense of frequency of
bug fixes.

What do people think?

Cheers

Martin

> Bye!
> Marc
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:42:19 +1100 (EST)