On 03/24/2014 11:29 AM, Raine M. Ekman wrote: > There's the critical issue of mixing top and bottom posting. That > really needs to be stamped out... please, stick to the style of the > previous message and don't make it harder to read for the rest of us. :) > > As for branches, branching 1.0 off of master and only applying bug > fixes to it or something like that sounds like a sound strategy to me, > too. >
Here's what I'm thinking: branch off stable-0.4 into two branches, stable-1.0 and master. Simple, easy, descriptive. Then stable-1.0 would only get bugfixes, and we could develop 1.1 in master. Then, stable 1.0 would only get bugfixes, and releases from that branch would be always named 1.0.x even if we're otherwise at 1.1 or 1.2. When 1.1 gets released, it would again also be branched to its own branch, stable-1.1, and then that branch would always spawn releases named 1.1.x. I think there's definitely merit in providing two separate branches of the software - one that stays more stable and only get bugfixes, and another that is more cutting edge. LMMS is a program that people use for production, and many people like to keep their production tools stable. The only thing to decide would be how long to support old branches... maybe like a year at max.? Or we could just wing it, take it as it comes, cross that bridge when we get there... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
