On 04/16/2016 09:30 AM, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Samstag, 16. April 2016 um 08:34:47, schrieb Richard Heck <rgh...@lyx.org> >> I have just created two staging branches, as discussed in a previous >> thread. These are: >> >> 2.3-staging >> 2.2.1-staging >> >> The former can be treated as master usually is: It is for development on >> what will become 2.3 and is now open for commits. This branch will be >> merged into master after the release of 2.2.0. >> >> The latter should be treated as 2.2.x usually is: It is open for commits >> to what will become the 2.2.x branch and is particularly intended for >> commits to that branch that will become part of 2.2.1. So commits to >> this branch need my approval. For the moment, only fixes for pretty >> serious bugs will be considered, as the current plan is for 2.2.1 to be >> a quick release that contains only fixes for serious bugs that emerge >> after release. This branch will be merged into 2.2.x once that has been >> branched from master. >> >> As usual, fixes for bugs committed to 2.2.1-staging (=2.2.x) should >> first be committed to 2.3-staging (=master). These should be marked >> "fixedinmaster" in trac but NOT "fixedinstable" and tagged with >> milestone 2.2.1. >> >> Fixes for other 2.2.x bugs should be committed to 2.3-staging and marked >> with milestone 2.2.2 in trac.If there's no bug report already, then >> create one. This will allow me to keep track of such bugs so that they >> can be committed to 2.2.x at a later date. >> >> Richard > Does it mean, the master is closed? Or in other words, what happens if > someone commits in master?
My understanding is that master is still closed, except for absolutely critical fixes with Scott's approval, and that it will remain that way until 2.2.0 is released. The point of having 2.3-staging is so that development can continue under those conditions, i.e., development that is targeted at 2.3. JMarc is doing some painting work (I think), for example. We talked about branching 2.2.x now and doing 2.2.0 development there, but this path wasn't the one chosen, because it was thought to be important that the 2.2.0 tag be in master, as all other such tags have been. Any commits made to master will still be in master once 2.3-staging is merged into it, so there is no issue there. Richard
