I think there is agreement that we should branch 2.3.0, rather than keep master for only 2.3.0 work. From what I understand, the main benefit is that those working on features will not have to do so much work to merge/rebase their patches. We have had some recent discussion on branching at [1].
To make sure we're all on the same page, the following are the commands
that I propose running:
git checkout master
git branch 2.3.x
The 2.3.x branch would become 2.3.0, and after 2.3.0 is released, will
become the stable branch that we are used to (i.e., what 2.2.x currently
is). What is committed to master branch would be included in the next
major LyX release (e.g. 2.4.0).
I would imagine that for now, the low-risk bug-fix commits would go into
both the master and 2.3.x branches (e.g. similar to how some bug-fix
commits go into the current master and the current 2.2.x branch). From
what I understand, as we get closer to the 2.3.0 release, we only want
very safe commits to the 2.2.x branch because we don't want to introduce
a regression into the last point release for 2.2.x. Thus, I don't think
the possibility of having to commit to three branches (master, 2.3.x,
and 2.2.x) will cause too much of a burden.
Do others have similar thoughts to I as to how this will work? Does this
plan sound good?
Scott
[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=20170307000624.qxvce7oyhn6h6rgt%40steph
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
