So to be clear, this is the catch-22 with trunk that I'm referring to. If we say: "develop only in 4.0 branch, consider trunk R-T-C except for rules", then rules may still break things in trunk and I think trunk will get stale because 4.0 has a lot of changes coming. There is no way to isolate development and testing to a branch.
Anyway, my offer above stands to +1 a vote to move active development to a 4.0 branch and changing only rules on trunk so trunk stays as stable as it can while 4.0 branch can be able to be more of a normal development branch with the risk inherent therein. But I don't think it "fixes" what you all are worried about. Perhaps give it a few days to discuss before calling for a formal vote? Regards, KAM -- Kevin A. McGrail Member, Apache Software Foundation Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171 On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 4:07 AM Henrik K <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:33:19AM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > > > But I'll +1 a vote to move active development to a 4.0 > > branch and changing only rules on trunk so trunk stays as stable as it > can > > while 4.0 branch can be able to be more of a normal development branch > with the > > risk inherent therein. I think that will risk trunk getting out of sync > and > > stale but that might be a benefit if stability is a desire. > > Will comment since subject changed.. > > I would +1 for a 4.0 branch too, since it's mandatory anyway. Hopefully > 3.4.5 is the last release and we are actually getting to 4.0. > > I believe a desired scenario would be just like it is now, 4.0 would be > similar to 3.4 branch, and actual development would be in trunk. So not > the > way Kevin describes, why would development happen in 4.0 branch, it goes > against normal development standards? > > Though I don't know what the masscheck branch should be then. Preferably > the stable release that people actually use in production. This needs some > consideration. > >
