On Thursday, 3 January 2013 at 22:04:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, January 03, 2013 21:42:37 Johannes Pfau wrote:
What I am most concerned about are the timespans discussed:
"I propose to go for a yearly release of the
stable branches with one year support (In the beginning)."
The wiki discussion page even mentions "I don't think 4 months
are a
ridiculously long time for staging if the release is made
every 3
years."
That makes it sound like they want the current stuff to be
marked as staging
and then have some other release that sits around for a very
long time being
treated as somehow more stable than the staging branch. In
general, there's
nothing about bug fixing which is stable, and separating out
bug fixes between a
more stable branch and a less stable one doesn't make all that
much sense.
Separating out new features and not putting them in the
"stable" branch makes
sense, but that really doesn't make sense for bugs.
Also, the name "staging" implies that it's purely for preparing
a release, in
which case keeping it around makes _no_ sense. Not to mention,
as already
mentioned, it would make more sense to simply create a new
branch for each
release to begin with than have a staging branch if that's what
it's for. And
if that's not what it's for, then it's a horrible name.
- Jonathan M Davis
As I explained several times before, this is a HORRIBLE idea. If
each release has its own branch than a bug fix needs to be
applied to _all_ such branches _manually_ and it is easy to get a
situation where a fix on say version 3.1 was accidentally not
merged to version 4.0 (forgotten) and suddenly the bug was
"unfixed".
Whatever the name of this branch is, the semantics/purpose of it
is to provide integration.
