On Jun 25, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Noah Slater wrote: > On 25 Jun 2010, at 18:36, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > >> I don't care much either way about where to cut 1.0 from at this point >> except I wish this would have been brought up earlier so I didn't had to >> waste a lot of time on the backports. > > I do. > > When we set out our release procedure, we said that we could cut all new > versions from trunk. We copy trunk to a branch folder, and release from that > into tags. Bug fixes are back-ported to the branches and then cut to a new > tag. >
I agree with you Noah, that we should cut new versions from trunk (in general). A few months ago we discussed a plan whereby 1.0 would be cut from 0.11.x. The idea behind this was to make sure no one sat on code that would be good for 1.1 but not 1.0. Eg: feel free to commit crazy stuff to trunk, as long as you don't backport to 0.11.x, it won't be in 1.0. However, it turned out that trunk hasn't seen much action that we should leave out of 1.0, so I'm happy to stick to our normal release procedure here, and cut from 1.0 from trunk. I know others disagree with me and think we should stick to our stated plan of cutting it from 0.11.x I don't actually care what we branch from. I'm also not bothered by the idea of doing differently than we planned. What matters is that 1.0 have the same code as trunk (minus whatever commits need holding back for 1.1). (apologies if this got sent twice... bah, mail clients) > I'm really not up to speed with what is going on at the moment, but I must > say that I find whatever it is quite confusing. It is my uneducated > preference that we stick to the release procedure as it is documented. > > If the release procedure is defective in some way, then I propose we update > it to fix whatever process bug we found that has caused us to do whatever it > is that we're doing at the moment. I'm just really not happy with procedure > deviating from what is documented. It makes my job harder, for a start.
