On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 04:26:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Well that's what happened - someone started 2.067. What's the
advantage of doing this? Now we need to worry about master and
2.067 instead of just master. -- Andrei
Well, what you do at that point is just fix all of the
regressions on the branch, and when it's ready you do another
release. You don't put anything else on it. All of the normal dev
work goes on master. And some point after the branch has been
released as the next release, you branch again.
Now, unless we have enough regressions on master that it's going
to take us over a month to fix them, I think that branching right
after releasing is a bit much, though if some of the regressions
are bad enough, maybe it would make sense to release faster. And
given how long we've been trying to get 2.066 ready after
branching it and how much work has been done on master since
then, maybe it makes sense. I don't know.
I would have thought though that we'd aim to branch something
like 2 to 4 weeks after releasing and then take about a month to
make sure that all regressions are fixed so that we get a release
about every two months. All the major dev work just continues on
master, and it'll end up on a branch about every two months
staggered from when that branch gets released as an official
release.
Certainly, aiming for something along those lines would get us
faster releases than we've been doing. We've been waiting way too
long to branch and then been rather slow about getting through
all of the regressions. By branching earlier, we should be able
to release more quickly.
- Jonathan M Davis
