Hi!
I plan to create two CVS stable branches immediately after the official
releases are out.
One branch is for libgii 0.8.x and the other for libggi 2.0.x.
The main devel tree goes ahead to libgii 0.9.0 and libggi 2.1.0.
While versions are tagged by the 'version_major_minor_subminor'
semantic, branches should IMO be tagged with
'branch_major_minor'.
What should go in the stable branches are:
- bugfixes, bugfixes and bugfixes :)
- target improvements, that has been proven stable
What may go in the stable branches:
- new targets, which are almost ready (will be marked as
experimental)
On the GGI site, I wanna have a 'CVS stable branch' section.
This section should enlist user _visible_ changes and seperated ChangeLogs
from the devel tree for the details.
Further, it has to explain how to checkout/update from any branch and how
to commit for the developers.
Eric said on IRC, he will do some brainstorming about that during his
holiday in Japan (He is away from Monday to... anywhere... :).
Why the branches?
1. Branches allow us to make shorter release cycles. We don't need to wait
until changes - deep changes in particular - has been proven stable. We
make releases, whenever the ChangeLog is long or the changes are important
enough (see above). People should NOT think, GGI defuncted (once) again,
due to too long release delays...
In short: This makes us more flexible for cases, where we MUST or CAN make
releases. (/me thinks on the case, when a security whole was found and
fixed)
2. Target developers rely on a working foundation. They can write GGI
targets without worrying about internal instabilities, etc.
3. Packagers have the advantage to make releases from the stable branch
tree at any time. (i.e. when they can't wait for a release to put in the
latest x-target fixes in their packages...)
4. (Experimental) users are generally known to only use/try out almost or
only stable things. The stable CVS branch allows us to get a more tester
base, which (hopefully) means more feedback.
Those, who affear doing double work are right, _if_ they port _every_
little patch they have.
Thus, it is generally highly recommended to wait until there is something
that is really worth the effort (i.e. a major target improvement proven
being stable) unless the patch is interesting/important enough (i.e. a
minor but important bugfix).
Comments/Questions?
CU,
Christoph Egger
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
