Re: DISCUSSION: "branch RM" roles for non-released branches branch-1, branch-2, and master

For the number of patch release, I think it depends on the speed we add new features. The more features contained in a minor release, the more patch releases we need. Of course a responsible RM will also trigger more releases. What I want to say is, we do not need to set a hard limit on the

Re: DISCUSSION: "branch RM" roles for non-released branches branch-1, branch-2, and master

The Phoenix project typically releases new minors. Patch releases are rare. This used to be our model too before 1.0. (For the 0.x.y versions mentally drop the "0.") Users don't seem to care. I do think there is appetite for one or two long term stable code lines. Right now that's

Re: DISCUSSION: "branch RM" roles for non-released branches branch-1, branch-2, and master

> frequent. For example, I'm going to be done with branch-1.4 in six months > and on to branch-1.5. (Hypothetically.) Anyone is welcome to RM those > branch-x.y. As long as someone is actively RMing branch-x.y it stays alive. > That's how we'd come to a consensus on what is long term stable. I

Re: DISCUSSION: "branch RM" roles for non-released branches branch-1, branch-2, and master

So to sum up my understanding of the idea: - More minor/major releases, less patch releases - From logistic perspective, we are moving from a model where few people are locked in for long time (4-5 RMs locked in for ~10 patch releases) to a model where more people are locked in for less time (more

Re: DISCUSSION: "branch RM" roles for non-released branches branch-1, branch-2, and master

> ​ For eg. Andrew will caretake branch-1.4, Stack will caretake branch-2.0 Not as I originally proposed. In this example, Andrew will caretake branch-1 and Stack will caretake branch-2. Andrew and Stack will be making more minor release branches more often and patch releases will become less

Re: DISCUSSION: "branch RM" roles for non-released branches branch-1, branch-2, and master

> If somebody volunteers to be the caretaker for 1.5.0, is there an implicit expectation that they would take on the responsibilities for branch-1 as well? Not as I originally proposed. We will get away from RMs per branch for e.g. branch-1.y and focus on RMs for each branch-x (and master). We

Re: DISCUSSION: "branch RM" roles for non-released branches branch-1, branch-2, and master

I like the thought, continuing to brainstorm In this method, the following holds true, right? - Care taking "branch-X.Y" will require least effort and will by default fall onto the shoulders of RM for X.Y version. For eg. Andrew will caretake branch-1.4, Stack will caretake branch-2.0, and so

Re: DISCUSSION: "branch RM" roles for non-released branches branch-1, branch-2, and master

If somebody volunteers to be the caretaker for 1.5.0, is there an implicit expectation that they would take on the responsibilities for branch-1 as well? On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Stack wrote: > (Moving discussion to DISCUSSION thread from "NOTICE: made branch-2.0 >

DISCUSSION: "branch RM" roles for non-released branches branch-1, branch-2, and master

(Moving discussion to DISCUSSION thread from "NOTICE: made branch-2.0 from..." -- my fault for starting it in wrong place) A while back, Andrew made a PROPOSAL for 'branch RM's [1]. I like this suggestion. I see it as a means of avoiding the hell that was 2.0.0 where its taken near on a year to