On 2/16/07, Yen-Ju Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/16/07, David Chisnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 16 Feb 2007, at 16:35, Quentin Mathé wrote: > > > I'm ok with this model, perhaps /stable should go along /trunk > > rather than in /branches/stable. What do you think? > > So the top level svn view would be: > > /branches/ > {individual branches for individual work if people want them} > > /trunk/ (main development work) > > /stable/ (stuff moved from /trunk that seems to be working) > > /releases/ > 0.2/ (current release + bug fixes) > 0.3/ (next release + bug fixes)Although it is is nice to have release branches, I am afraid that we will not have enough man power to maintain it. Considering the whole Etoile is still under heavy development, my suggestion is that we only tag the -stable as release (under /tag in svn). If there are bugs, we fix in -stable and tag it as bug-fixed release. In that way, we only need to maintain -trunk and -stable mostly. in other word, people have to be more careful about what they put in -stable.
I tend to agree.. if we had more stable/complete releases and a huge installed base, it would make sense to backport bugfixes for evey releases. But it takes quite a bit of effort to do that, and at the moment it's not obvious it would be really useful (most people would simply update to the latest stable release). So let me recap; developers work on trunk; when they are satisfied with the stability of something, they tag it as -stable; and bugfixes are applied to both trunk and -stable. Releases then could be done without too much work, simply grabbing the last -stable code and tagging it with a release number. Everyone agree ? -- Nicolas Roard "La perfection, ce n'est pas quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, c'est quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher." -- Antoine de St-Exupéry _______________________________________________ Etoile-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
