On 06/04/2013 10:26 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
1.4.4 has been released. The first person finds some changes that should be
placed into a 1.4.5 release. As such, a 1.4.5-SNAPSHOT branch would be
created from the 1.4.4 tag.
What's the advantage of 1.4.5-SNAPSHOT as opposed to a branch named
1.4.x? On other projects, there's an assumption of one branch per
maintained minor version, with point releases as tags along they way.
How is your more complex? scheme advantageous?
Much of this discussion is entirely based on the fact that my opinions
were solicited while the majority of people tended not to agree with how
I would prefer to manage branches.
As such, I've stopped arguing my points as, and will attempt to be
detached. Having been part of transition a decent-sized "subversion"
team to git, which typically tries to manage with 2+ concurrent
releases, I've developed my own opinions on how to manage this. Most of
it stems from lack of moderation on where changes should be made in such
an environment and that history is easily mucked up and when changes are
placed in inappropriate places. If it seems completely absurd to even
have this discussion (I don't fault you in the slightest -- I'm 99%
there myself), I'm actively working a write-up to track concrete decisions.
As far as a minor-release branch name, I really just don't care. It's a
name. My opinion is to tie it to something specific and meaningful. I do
not find 1.4.x nomenclature meaningful, so, as such, I proposed
alternatives.
Ultimately, I hope that those currently performing the most development
should form their own opinion from the facts that have been presented
when it comes time for a decision to be made.
