On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 10:05:58AM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: [...] > Just one tidbit of information: I talked to Walter and we want to > build into the process the ability to modify any particular release. > (One possibility is to do so as part of paid support for large > corporate users.) That means there needs to be one branch per > release. [...]
This can be done easily if we maintain each release as a separate git branch. It does not even require modifying the current process, since as I understand it we're already proposing to branch when making a release. So in theory, if there's an urgent need, we can sidestep the "maintain at most two stable releases at a time" part of the process, checkout an older release, apply a bugfix, release another patch, etc.. If we name the git branches properly, there shouldn't be a problem with the proliferation of branches, as it will be obvious what each branch is for. T -- Try to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out. -- theboz