On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 22:37:10 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 20:55:34 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
On 12/18/2012 09:48 PM, SomeDude wrote:
And it's not the same at all as creating one branch every
month.
But why would you do that? The general discussion seems to
have been around the idea of 1 or 2 stable releases per year,
1 every 3 months max.
THat's what I understood from Andrei's post:
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.
Andrei
Maybe I misunderstood him, I don't know.
He seemed to imply that, but to me it makes little sense to
support older versions of a stable release. The support comes
from the latest stable bug fix update, and you normally don't
bother propagating a bug fix any further down stream. The best
you may do, is after a new release is made, continue supporting
the latest older release for a limited period of time until the
newest release is considered completely free of any major bugs.
If there's a code breaking release, I can see the previous older
stable version being supported for a fairly long period of time.
--rt
