Markus Neteler wrote: > I am also not quite sure about the need of the 6.5 branch?
I think it is better to think of it by its name, develbranch_6, than as the 6.5 branch. Then much the same as releasebranch_5_5 we should just leave it in peace to grow old and collect dust. Calling it 6.5 implies a future 6.5.0 release of development work, like we did for 6.3.0, but there are no plans for that. > For me it is sufficient to have 6.4 as production system > and 7 as experimental system. > > Honestly, who's *using* it as a user? I use it.. my normal workflow is to use it as my everyday scratch pad and for experimentation, then switch to 6.4 when I need to generate real numbers I will put in a report. (which also encourages me to properly test and backport changes in the weeks following development :) I'm not comfortable using trunk for my job-work, and I'm not comfortable developing directly in 6.4. As most of my current contributions stem from fixing bugs/overcoming problems+needs I encounter as I do my day job, I typically end up in the middle of the two: 6.5. I'm probably not a standard user, but perhaps not too far from how a power-user might operate. > Because: yes, it can (could?) be branch to be used for > testing but I actually don't know anyone who really uses > 6.5 for work. fwiw my usual dev mode has to put any potentially dangerous 6.x specific change in 6.5 first for two weeks, then try not to forget to back port it to 6.4 once it has been well tested. (And as a rule only commit things to 6.4 that I am quite sure of) > Please tell us if you use 6.5 for work to understand if > this branch is really needed. in its function as develbranch_6, and to preserve its svn history, I would certainly argue strongly not to simply delete it. but I'd be very happy to declare all 6.x to be in bug-fix- only mode (except perhaps for already begun wxGUI projects) and let it sit there idle. aka it would seem to me like defeat to remove choice from users because us developers couldn't muster discipline, and so needed to implement technological fixes to what are essentially social problems. (maintaining focus) Glynn: >> We should release GRASS 6.4.2 and end the version 6 series. I am not against a 6.4.3 release which just fixed some bugs people found. Similarly I am not against a 5.4.2 release if there is some terrible bug (ie data corruption or copyright issue) found which goes back there. That doesn't mean it has to be anything like the place of development it has been up 'til now though. Madi wrote (& Massimo echoed): > As a user, I can say that it is actually the most usable > IMHO, G7 is not stable enough and the 6.4 is not so up-to-date. since 6.4.1 was released a flood of backports have happened and now AFAIK 6.4 and 6.5 are not anything like as out of sync as they used to be. I wonder if I should set up a cron job on the adhoc server to generate a weekly diff. I don't think that everything currently in devbr6 must be backported to relbr64, but we should be aware if we've meant to backport something but forgotten to do it. Any reason to wait any longer for 6.4.2rc1? letting go is hard to do, Hamish _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
