I've never understood this business of having multiple releases as progressions 
on the same code branch.  

It seems far more confusing than having a branch or tag that corresponds to the 
release identifier.  It also helps if there is a need for a patch release at a 
particular branch.

It also makes check-out of a specific release branch easier.  And it is easy to 
confirm the archive of the released source against its SVN.

Although there is a lot of code involved, I thought SVN used a Copy on Write 
strategy so copying code into a branch does not create actual copies but links, 
with copies made only when a difference is introduced at either end of the 
link.  Am I mistaken?

I don't have much skin in this game.  It just strikes me that there is a high 
risk of confusion and possible error this way.  Even if a 412 is built from a 
copy of 411, rather than the trunk, with changes then cherry-picked into it, it 
seems easier to inspect and to understand.

 - Dennis  

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] 
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 18:57
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] Review and improve graphics memory handling

On 02/06/2015 armin.le.gr...@me.com wrote:
> AFAIU AOO410 branch goes on for 411, 412, 413... versions. One branch
> for next mid-number change, e.g. AOO420 would need a new one. For AOO411
> we have no extra branch AFAIK, only a revision number in AOO410 branch.
> I would keep that schema - the goal of micro releases is minor
> changes/stability, no need for a new branch

I'm OK with this. I will commit changes to the existing AOO410 branch 
instead of creating AOO412 then.

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Reply via email to