On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Lamar Owen wrote:
But Tom's assertion is true. We have enough trouble getting patches rolled out; adding parallel branches is just begging for trouble, due to our relatively small resource size. Although, we probably have enough developers at this point to make it happen.
Except, we already have parallel branches, else we'd never have made a 7.4.x release ...
Bruce I would want to be the patchmeister for the stable branch. Someone else (with Bruce's oversight, or Tom's, or whoever) could do the patchmunging and review for the development tree. But I want a stable hand on patches that go into the stable tree.
The BSD's release something like that, with CURRENT, TESTING, and STABLE, right? (I'm not a big BSD user...)
We have a CURRENT branch where all the 'innovations' are done (SMP re-writes, etc) ... and a STABLE which is a release with stuff patched down from CURRENT *if* applicable ... periodically, a RELEASE is made along either branch, and, some day, what is currently CURRENT will be re-tag'd as -STABLE, and then CURRENT will become a new branch ...
So, for instance, the way we number:
7.4.x would be -STABLE HEAD would be -CURRENT
once 7.5 is released, it would surplant 7.4 as -STABLE, previous versions would only ever see 'security related patches' and work towards 7.6 would be -CURRENT ...
Now, if we went with a 'long term dev cycle', then we might look at 7.x as being -STABLE, while work towards 8.x would be considered -CURRENT ...
As a community, I don't think we should be 'supporting' anything older then the last STABLE ...
---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
