Le 12/04/16 21:33, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :
Let's focus on the following options:
A) Branch 2.3.staging from master and continue "unstable" development on
2.3.staging. After 2.2.0 is released we merge 2.3.staging into
master.
B) Branch 2.2.x from master and continue "unstable" development on
master.
To me it does not feel right that the commits in-between 2.2.0rc1 and
2.2.0 final would not *necessarily* be in master's commit history. I
think this breaks precedent. Although we would in practice cherry-pick
from one to the other, this would not be true for the commits that are
specific to the 2.2.0 release. Specifically, to me it feels right that
fde16219 is in master's commit history.
As a data point, gcc seems to do the early branching:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=gcc-5-branched-gcc-6.0
If you look at Qt, they would have branched at the time of feature
freeze (with comparable delays):
https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_5.7_Release
I don't see the advantage of B over A and I don't think we have done B
before.
This is why it is so exciting ;)
JMarc or anyone else would you have a strong opinion _against_ going
with A over B?
I do not have a strong opinion. Whatever you choose will be fine.
JMarc
