OK, so here is a concrete proposal for branch names: * "master" for the latest uncontroversial developments, which will become 3.2 * various topic branches to hold controversial or incomplete changes * "release" for the latest release, which will remain 3.1 then become 3.2 * "3.1" for work continued work on ASDF 3.1 after master becomes 3.2 * "release-3.1" for stable releases of ASDF 3.1 after release becomes 3.2
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Evolution competitively selects stable cooperative patterns. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Kambiz Darabi <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2015-11-17 18:11 CET, Robert Goldman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [...] >> So I'd like to split ASDF development into stable and testing or >> something like that. >> >> Does anyone have experience doing that? If so, please post suggestions >> for process to ASDF-devel. > > If we have to support version 3.x and 4.y of a code base, then we create > a 'release-3' branch at feature freeze time and keep it after release, > so 3.1, 3.2 etc. are created from the tip of 'release-3' where we > cherry-pick (mostly bugfix) changes from master. > > In the meantime, development of version 4 continues in master and when > we freeze the features for that version, we create a 'release-4' branch > which is then curated until 4.1 can be released. > > This is a quite transparent model which most developers understand > immediately. > > HTH > > > Kambiz >
