Am 18. April 2016 22:56:06 MESZ, schrieb Richard Heck <rgh...@lyx.org>: >On 04/18/2016 04:32 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" ><syntheti...@gmx.net>: >>> I also think these branches are overkill. >>> >>> I would only use master and 2.2. No 2.3, it is so far away that it >could be in master. >>> >>> 2.2 should be always stable so that at any time a short living 2.2.x >could be branched until the release is done. After the tag 2.2.x will >be deleted then. >>> >>> Similar to >>> https://wiki.qt.io/Branch_Guidelines >>> >>> Peter >> We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: >2.3 > >We discussed this sort of option: Branch 2.2.x now and continue >development towards 2.2.0 there. Then development targeted at 2.3 can >continue in master. But most people didn't like this option. Most >importantly, Scott didn't like it, or didn't feel comfortable with it, >and it's his call. > >So master is still what will become 2.2.0, and it is closed except for >absolutely essential fixes. But people wanted to be able to continue >development, so that's why we have 2.3-staging. > >The other two 2.2.x-staging branches are entirely for book-keeping >purposes. It is just easier for me to have the various fixes that are >intended for 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 in git branches rather than to try to keep >track of them via milestones or keywords or whatever in trac. It's also >easier for people to backport these fixes around the same time they did >them than to do it weeks or months later. > >We're not really "think[ing] about four stable releases in parallel", >and certainly I do not expect that the staging branches are going to >get >any kind of testing. Once 2.2.x is created, it will get testing, and at >that point 2.2.1-staging will be merged into it, and then will politely >disappear. Same, eventually, for 2.2.2-staging. > >Richard
But why are there fixes which should go only into 2.2.2 and not into an unreleased 2.2.1? Peter