On 04/19/2016 05:41 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:19:15PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: >> Am Dienstag, 19. April 2016 um 17:01:58, schrieb Richard Heck >> <rgh...@lyx.org> >>> >>> Note that nothing goes to 2.2.x-staging that is not in 2.3-staging. This >>> is the same as usual procedure: Commit to master, then ask if it's ok to >>> commit to 2.1.x. It's just that 2.3-staging is playing the role of >>> master now and 2.2.x-staging is playing the role of 2.1.x. >> I understood it from your other mail. BUT if 2.3-staging is playing the >> role of master, why not use master >> and get rid of this 2.3-staging? What is the role of master now? Being >> closed (which it is not because there are >> commits! E.g. c46d5cc) is not very satisfying. > The role of master is 2.2.0. It is not 100% closed (if it were then > 2.2.0 would be released). It is open for critical patches.
And for stuff like translations, which is what c46d5cc was, from Uwe. In any event, this question isn't really relevant at this point. We all agree that we could have branched 2.2.x now, but it was decided not to do that until after 2.2.0 is released. This is Scott's call, and if that's what makes him most comfortable, it's good by me. He's got enough else to worry about. Since we didn't do that, we have a simple choice: Either we have a 2.3-staging branch or we stop development until 2.2.0 is released. It seems an easy choice. This is no different from what we did last time, except the 2.2.x-staging branch got created at the same time as 2.3-staging. Last time, it got created later, because, as I wrote on 24 March 2014 [1]: The issue, for me, is that there are now nearly 30 commits in 2.2-staging that are not in master, some of which are appropriate for 2.1.1 and some of which are not; some have been backported into 2.0.8, and some have not. Some of what is in 2.0.8 needs to go into 2.1.1, but some of th[ose bugs] may already have been fixed [in 2.1.0], etc, etc. I can't keep track of it all, and trac is only marginally useful here. It's also true that we have two 2.2.x-staging branches instead of one this time. That's because we're reserving 2.2.1 for a possible fast release, so not everything destined for 2.2.x is going to 2.2.1 at this time. But note that I would still need the 2.2.x-staging branches, even if we'd already branched 2.2.x. I.e., even if 2.2.x existed, it would be open only for commits appropriate to 2.2.0. So I'd still want 2.2.1-staging and 2.2.2-staging, and for exactly the same reason I want them now. If they didn't exist in lyx.git, I'd create them in my own repo. But then it's a lot more work for me, since I've got to cherry-pick everything myself. Richard [1] http://marc.info/?l=lyx-devel&m=139567319926539&w=2
