On Sep 14, 2011, at 11:05 AM, [email protected] wrote: > On 09/14, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: >> Here's my best recap and explanation because I think you are confusing the >> branch issue too much. > > To summarize: Incrementing the version from 3.3.x to 3.4.x without > branching svn qualifies as "branching". > > After re-reading this thread, I am hopeful that you are the only one who > feels this way, and I would like you to please stop it :) > > Say this month, September, we do a release from trunk, call it 3.4.0, create > an svn branch from trunk called 3.4 (due to status quo). Then in January, > assuming we still want to do another release of what is in trunk at that > time, with no major changes, and call it 3.4.1. What do we do with svn > in January? >
You wouldn't do that. For a release, you branch trunk based on the major/minor release number, for instance 3.4.0 would branch to 3.4. Then you would create the 3.4.0 release off that branch. If you later did a 3.4.1 release you would also release it from the 3.4 branch. If you want to do a 3.5.0 release in January then you would branch to 3.5 and then do the 3.5.0 release from there. > I guess the clearest I can be is to say: I'd like the releases > to always come from trunk (either directly built from trunk, or svn > branched around the time of release), unless a reason comes up not to. > I don't care what the version numbers are, and I don't care (much) > if you want to copy trunk to another svn branch around that time. > > So I guess I'm back to my last suggestion: > September: Release from trunk, version 3.4.0, svn branched to 3.4.0 (not 3.4) > January: Release from trunk, version 3.4.1, svn branched to 3.4.1 I'm -1 for this branching/release strategy. Michael > > I don't think the svn branching is necessary, but if it makes some folks > more comfortable, and we completely stop backporting patches, I don't > think it's a problem. > > -- > "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- > and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless > series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken > http://www.ChaosReigns.com
