From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 02 12:13:59 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Apr 2012 16:13:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36775 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SEjtG-0004O9-K7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:13:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58648) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SEjtD-0004O1-Js for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:13:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEjsq-0003AE-NW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:13:38 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:51397) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEjsq-0003A9-Hm for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:13:32 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36114) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEjsj-0005dP-5Z for bug-automake@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:13:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEjsh-00038g-2k for bug-automake@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:13:24 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f41.google.com ([209.85.214.41]:56369) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEjsU-00036y-BA; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:13:10 -0400 Received: by bkwq16 with SMTP id q16so2900008bkw.0 for ; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:13:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=saFmmszAI23dJlqTJ6RM0gnPu0NvBExizt9WLUralwM=; b=rEeC7TsXnDaVeDiIEcnLSCuIDbmM+14MF38q+atrjEPbuhQ27wz+Tsj4HaYbIuK++1 SoYr1EK7bHGWPqTT8omzBbcPR0+vZff9yvhjJBswnCcEap6Ydu1K6ZGo+aViUSH7uFKI GY8QNm1eynHmWyZj8ifDgCXXFZ6K2YXX8yP4tPrbsgN8bPFvc9CUVLG+Sfk+Ye82iFdU j6jQp7LPrOIiVP0Mp3BqGE65g5AJqnWkMh7x4Rk6wm9QxhkqQkr1t3zZ5YcMEg+uSHZc A15Hni/Ao9W4COXqz6oa8odhRz1sZvDCIRiAy+p+TjfC3s92MIKHW29W3zLLEaZcWQTJ eYCQ== Received: by 10.205.119.130 with SMTP id fu2mr3851270bkc.32.1333383187599; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [79.10.95.69] (host69-95-dynamic.10-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.10.95.69]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f6sm39616811bkg.10.2012.04.02.09.13.05 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:13:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:13:03 +0200 From: Stefano Lattarini MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "automake-patches@gnu.org" Subject: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -6.1 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: bug-automake@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.1 (------) Severity: wishlist thanks Hello Automakers. After some real hand-on experience with the current branching policy of Automake, I'm convinced the presence of the 'branch-X.Y' branches is just an annoyance and a source of confusion, and that a better policy would be to simply have a 'maint' branch (where to cut maintenance releases directly from), a master branch (where maint is to be kept regularly merged into, and from which the next major release is to be derived at last), and possibly topic branches (only when needed, and better if they are short-lived). Maybe we could also re-add the 'next' branch to serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, but than can be done in a second time (and only if the need arise). When a major release is done, the master branch is to be merged into the maint branch, and then a "new" master branch created stemming from the resulting commit. WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12 release. Regards, Stefano -*-*-*- diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING index 29c0e4a..b34cee6 100644 --- a/HACKING +++ b/HACKING @@ -103,37 +103,22 @@ latest stable version of Autoconf installed and available early in your PATH. -* The git tree currently carries a number of branches: master for the - current development, and release branches named branch-X.Y. The maint - branch serves as common ground for both master and the active release - branches. Changes intended for both should be applied to maint, which - should then be merged to release branches and master, of course after - suitable testing. It is advisable to merge only after a set of related - commits have been applied. - -* Example work flow for patches to maint: - - # 1. Checkout the "maint" branch: - git checkout maint - - # 2. Apply the patch(es) with "git am" (or create them with $EDITOR): - git am -3 0*.patch - # 2a. Run required tests, if any ... - - # 3. Merge maint into branch-1.11: - git checkout branch-1.11 - git merge maint - # 3a. Run required tests, if any ... - - # 4. Redo steps 3 and 3a for master: - git checkout master - git merge maint - # testing ... - - # 5. Push the maint and master branches: - git push --dry-run origin maint branch-1.11 master - # if all seems ok, then actually push: - git push origin maint branch-1.11 master +* The Automake git tree currently carries two basic branches: 'master' for + the current development, and 'maint' for maintenance and bug fixes. The + maint branch should be kept regularly merged into the master branch. + It is advisable to merge only after a set of related commits have been + applied, to avoid introducing too much noise in the history. + +* There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for new + developments. They should be based off of a common ancestor of all + active branches to which the feature should or might be merged later. + in the future, we might introduce a special branch named 'next' that + may serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, should + they not be ready for master yet. + +* When a major release is done, the master branch is to be merged into + the maint branch, and then a "new" master branch created stemming + from the resulting commit. * When fixing a bug (especially a long-standing one), it may be useful to commit the fix to a new temporary branch based off the commit that @@ -141,12 +126,6 @@ the active branches descending from the buggy commit. This offers a simple way to fix the bug consistently and effectively. -* There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for new developments. - They should be based off of a common ancestor of all active branches to - which the feature should or might be merged later. The next branch may - serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, should they not - be ready for master yet. - * For merges from branches other than maint, prefer 'git merge --log' over plain 'git merge', so that a later 'git log' gives an indication of which actual patches were merged even when they don't appear early in the list. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 02 14:14:51 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Apr 2012 18:14:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36882 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SElmE-0007DE-Kr for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:14:51 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46773) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SElmC-0007D6-6w for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:14:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SElls-0001UQ-WF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:14:30 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:47962) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SElls-0001UM-TD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:14:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58939) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEllr-0007IL-59 for bug-automake@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:14:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEllm-0001Tn-1F for bug-automake@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:14:26 -0400 Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se ([130.236.254.3]:39644) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SElll-0001TI-NS for bug-automake@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:14:21 -0400 Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBACD40004; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 20:14:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.150] (h57n3fls301o1095.telia.com [81.230.178.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B71740003; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 20:14:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4F79EC84.2020602@lysator.liu.se> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:14:28 +0200 From: Peter Rosin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefano Lattarini Subject: Re: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future References: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -6.1 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: bug-automake@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.1 (------) On 2012-04-02 18:13, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Severity: wishlist > thanks > > Hello Automakers. > > After some real hand-on experience with the current branching policy > of Automake, I'm convinced the presence of the 'branch-X.Y' branches > is just an annoyance and a source of confusion, and that a better policy > would be to simply have a 'maint' branch (where to cut maintenance > releases directly from), a master branch (where maint is to be kept > regularly merged into, and from which the next major release is to be > derived at last), and possibly topic branches (only when needed, and > better if they are short-lived). Maybe we could also re-add the 'next' > branch to serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, but > than can be done in a second time (and only if the need arise). > > When a major release is done, the master branch is to be merged into > the maint branch, and then a "new" master branch created stemming > from the resulting commit. I think what you are proposing is better described as dropping the maint branch and doing development of features for both the stable series as well as the pending major release directly on the stable branch. When you wish to make a new release you simply make sure you have merged the latest branch-x.y into master, then create a new branch-x. or branch-.0 from where the current master is and you're done. > WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and > implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12 > release. Consider what will happen if you don't have maint branches, and need to release security updates for both the 1.11 and 1.12 branches as well as having the security fixes available on master. If you have all the release-related commits as ancestors to the security fix (which you will with this scheme), you will have to resolve inevitable merge conflicts (or cherry-pick, ick). If you instead have a maint branch related to each release series, you should be able to make the real change on the oldest such maintenance branch and then merge it into the more modern maintenance branches, plus master, then merge the respective maintenance branches into the release branches (branch-1.11) before cutting the releases addressing the security problem. I think it's immensely more clean to have the current dual maint and branch-1.11 approach for each expected bug-fix series. When 1.12 is released, maint should probably move along with it and a maint-1.11 can be created when needed, if a security fix is ever needed for the 1.11 series. Hopefully, we will not need a maint-1.11, but such things are as they are... Either that, or you'd need to do dummy merges from branch-x.y into master after the release-related commits just to avoid future merge conflicts, but dummy merges are ugly in my opinion. And branches are cheap. I think we have learned not to merge new features past the maintenance branch (i.e. directly into the release branch) so I'm pretty confident that that particular problem will not resurface even if we do keep the maintenance branch. So, I'm voting for keeping both maint and branch-x.y. Cheers, Peter From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 02 14:47:51 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Apr 2012 18:47:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36902 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SEmIB-0007zr-7V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:47:51 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54152) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SEmI8-0007zj-Ai for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:47:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEmHp-0001N1-Al for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:47:30 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:37853) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEmHp-0001Mx-72 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:47:29 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49433) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEmHn-0001RQ-AQ for bug-automake@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:47:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEmHl-0001ME-Cs for bug-automake@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:47:26 -0400 Received: from mx.meyering.net ([88.168.87.75]:40191) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEmHe-0001KH-QI; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:47:18 -0400 Received: from rho.meyering.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rho.meyering.net (Acme Bit-Twister) with ESMTP id 39F6060056; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 20:47:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Jim Meyering To: Stefano Lattarini Subject: Re: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future In-Reply-To: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> (Stefano Lattarini's message of "Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:13:03 +0200") References: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:47:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87bona6kej.fsf@rho.meyering.net> Lines: 53 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: bug-automake@gnu.org, "automake-patches@gnu.org" X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) Stefano Lattarini wrote: ... > WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and > implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12 > release. I agree. IMHO, you won't go wrong following git.git's example. > diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING ... > +* The Automake git tree currently carries two basic branches: 'master' for > + the current development, and 'maint' for maintenance and bug fixes. The > + maint branch should be kept regularly merged into the master branch. > + It is advisable to merge only after a set of related commits have been > + applied, to avoid introducing too much noise in the history. > + > +* There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for new > + developments. They should be based off of a common ancestor of all > + active branches to which the feature should or might be merged later. > + in the future, we might introduce a special branch named 'next' that > + may serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, should > + they not be ready for master yet. reorder slightly: they not yet be ready for master. > +* When a major release is done, the master branch is to be merged into Does this convey your meaning? After making a major release, the master branch is to be merged into > + the maint branch, and then a "new" master branch created stemming > + from the resulting commit. > > * When fixing a bug (especially a long-standing one), it may be useful > to commit the fix to a new temporary branch based off the commit that > @@ -141,12 +126,6 @@ > the active branches descending from the buggy commit. This offers a > simple way to fix the bug consistently and effectively. > > -* There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for new developments. > - They should be based off of a common ancestor of all active branches to > - which the feature should or might be merged later. The next branch may > - serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, should they not > - be ready for master yet. > - > * For merges from branches other than maint, prefer 'git merge --log' over > plain 'git merge', so that a later 'git log' gives an indication of which > actual patches were merged even when they don't appear early in the list. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 02 15:43:12 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Apr 2012 19:43:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36936 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SEn9k-0000ow-A2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:43:12 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36677) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SEn9h-0000op-IL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:43:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEn9O-0006SR-7X for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:42:51 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:40473) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEn9O-0006SG-1V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:42:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44040) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEn9M-0005nz-55 for bug-automake@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:42:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEn9J-0006Rl-Un for bug-automake@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:42:47 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f41.google.com ([209.85.214.41]:63629) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEn9J-0006RR-GQ; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:42:45 -0400 Received: by bkwq16 with SMTP id q16so3162337bkw.0 for ; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:42:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LiOJqH4eazOa8PiZrOC4XHNKAmHE1pvxkrmS3TU/Lck=; b=thSroXbjhZA/BMdjwHc1jSNhZL+j5QsJge6arv9Jt4flHOWYEBghAI+4YWOynBb9pp ROXsbNZa7L6b3JhrU5/L13r/cfx1s8lWTxKLliRASHm/HCNtDey8brKVM2y2n0TBMcBH cyo4RGW/Lm7mSPhBYUFGxVEtNU42RtC4pMKPnq1MsOxBEqVjLnX0+b9jRNfgTXkg4apJ zxx+cm3md6te+d8yTDDlPk3FoT9lW7vjnKwjksjDnEnZMOrU8FNdqRbrDJjnlYsalXBK G6UnIy2zPCOaNPVa95jHgLgG1xIeZWUSqekn0EEoP4mYyX8nIZQbK4bRe7rP5VoIjLDN ocQA== Received: by 10.204.154.209 with SMTP id p17mr4274075bkw.6.1333395762469; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [87.2.97.201] (host201-97-dynamic.2-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [87.2.97.201]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p19sm40847440bka.1.2012.04.02.12.42.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:42:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F7A0122.1020306@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:42:26 +0200 From: Stefano Lattarini MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Rosin Subject: Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future References: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> <4F79EC84.2020602@lysator.liu.se> In-Reply-To: <4F79EC84.2020602@lysator.liu.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -6.1 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: bug-automake@gnu.org, 11153@debbugs.gnu.org, "automake-patches@gnu.org" X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.1 (------) Hi Peter, thanks for the feedback. But I fear we have a misunderstanding here. See below. On 04/02/2012 08:14 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2012-04-02 18:13, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Severity: wishlist >> thanks >> >> Hello Automakers. >> >> After some real hand-on experience with the current branching policy >> of Automake, I'm convinced the presence of the 'branch-X.Y' branches >> is just an annoyance and a source of confusion, and that a better policy >> would be to simply have a 'maint' branch (where to cut maintenance >> releases directly from), a master branch (where maint is to be kept >> regularly merged into, and from which the next major release is to be >> derived at last), and possibly topic branches (only when needed, and >> better if they are short-lived). Maybe we could also re-add the 'next' >> branch to serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, but >> than can be done in a second time (and only if the need arise). >> >> When a major release is done, the master branch is to be merged into >> the maint branch, and then a "new" master branch created stemming >> from the resulting commit. > > I think what you are proposing is better described as dropping the > maint branch and doing development of features for both the stable > series as well as the pending major release directly on the stable > branch. > Absolutely not. In 'maint' will go bugfixes, minor new features (with low protability of regressions), and possibly new warnings for obsoleted features (that might be removed when we pass to a future "major" version). In master will go "bigger" new feature, non-trivial refactorings, and backward-incompatible changes (after their coming has been duly announced and prepared in 'maint' and/or in earlier releases). This is basically the situation we have today, but without the extra indirections and possibility of confusion (i.e., another 'msvc'-style mess will be made less likely). > When you wish to make a new release you simply make sure > you have merged the latest branch-x.y into master, then create a new > branch-x. or branch-.0 from where the current master is > and you're done. > You mean that if we have just released automake 1.13, the release 1.13.1 should be cut from master? That is absolutely *not* what I want to do. Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly enough. >> WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and >> implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12 >> release. > > Consider what will happen if you don't have maint branches, > > [SNIP] > I snip mostly of the rest of your arguments, now that it is clear I still *want* to have a maint branch. > I think it's immensely more clean to have the current dual maint and > branch-1.11 approach for each expected bug-fix series. > Here I don't follow you. Why are not 'maint' a 'master' enough exactly? > When 1.12 is released, maint should probably move along with it > Yes, and a "new" master created, from which 1.13 will be finally derived. > and a maint-1.11 can be created when needed, if a security fix is ever > needed for the 1.11 series. > Agreed. But we don't need this branch right away, since the last commit in the 'maint' of the 1.11.x series will be properly tagged, so we can easily access need and create a bug-fix branch out of it if and when the need arises. > Hopefully, we will not need a maint-1.11, but such things > are as they are... > OK, so it sounds like we are in violent agreement in this matter. > Either that, or you'd need to do dummy merges from branch-x.y into > master after the release-related commits just to avoid future merge > conflicts, but dummy merges are ugly in my opinion. And branches are > cheap. > Tags even more -- you don't pay them with the risk of confusion. > I think we have learned not to merge new features past the maintenance > branch (i.e. directly into the release branch) > Huh? That *exactly* what should happen most of the time! It's the AM_PROG_AR situation that was an unusual case, in that we didn't want the delay in the 1.12 release to keep this useful and low-risk feature as "vaporware" for even more time -- so we merged it into the maintenance branch. Regards, Stefano From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 02 15:55:36 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Apr 2012 19:55:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36950 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SEnLk-00016e-Fs for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:55:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36523) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SEnLi-00016Y-W9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:55:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEnLQ-0001Kx-0u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:55:17 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:49108) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEnLP-0001Km-Qo for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:55:15 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:57447) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEnLO-0002bC-BM for bug-automake@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:55:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEnLM-0001K7-MU for bug-automake@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:55:13 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f41.google.com ([209.85.214.41]:45184) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SEnLJ-0001J8-A9; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:55:09 -0400 Received: by bkwq16 with SMTP id q16so3178285bkw.0 for ; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:55:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mxZse+ATgd4m97haqtW+/Ubz2foUfoOsHVh8CVpjtsw=; b=hT43YzpVKrrmmECBL6cfgQQExf9YNQmsxzDKBCDU4rl8GTua3ln+xonyb8/VbHVI9V IP0q6Z1NHZPV2cArULxQAHWXDJmi7Za+l2uQctIeZP+e/dwRNCtaM0fVskrteivxlUzQ gkncVMsvLz3GIUK25/q3HVy3Zc1CDe/zf5MfuntYKxGphdWs+2Qh2nvSijT3etmr6NdJ +55G79ehS2aduhYv+gw87FzTwOGySIX2u4vDugMmfRyJj+HuNfxAS3VhKuyXrCkxH0S/ UzRTDoTl4fzgHkG932V53PN0OB2YucN3Wa7fy3XhR287OnOpd6UAu32SvN8suf1YoIv1 A59w== Received: by 10.204.153.203 with SMTP id l11mr4268599bkw.31.1333396505279; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:55:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [87.2.97.201] (host201-97-dynamic.2-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [87.2.97.201]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f5sm40840377bke.9.2012.04.02.12.55.02 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:55:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F7A0413.50306@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:54:59 +0200 From: Stefano Lattarini MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Meyering Subject: Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future References: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> <87bona6kej.fsf@rho.meyering.net> In-Reply-To: <87bona6kej.fsf@rho.meyering.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -6.1 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: bug-automake@gnu.org, 11153@debbugs.gnu.org, automake-patches@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.1 (------) Hi Jim. On 04/02/2012 08:47 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > ... >> WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and >> implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12 >> release. > > I agree. > IMHO, you won't go wrong following git.git's example. > Glad you agree. As for your nits you've pointed out: I've fixed them both. Thanks, Stefano From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 02 18:01:40 2012 Received: (at 11153) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Apr 2012 22:01:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37054 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SEpJj-00043r-83 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:01:40 -0400 Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se ([130.236.254.3]:51810) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SEpJf-00043i-Gh for 11153@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:01:37 -0400 Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DCD40004; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 00:01:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.150] (h57n3fls301o1095.telia.com [81.230.178.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9527140003; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 00:01:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4F7A21B6.9020007@lysator.liu.se> Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:01:26 +0200 From: Peter Rosin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefano Lattarini Subject: Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future References: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> <4F79EC84.2020602@lysator.liu.se> <4F7A0122.1020306@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7A0122.1020306@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 11153 Cc: 11153@debbugs.gnu.org, automake-patches@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) On 2012-04-02 21:42, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Hi Peter, thanks for the feedback. But I fear we have a misunderstanding > here. See below. > > On 04/02/2012 08:14 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On 2012-04-02 18:13, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> Severity: wishlist >>> thanks >>> >>> Hello Automakers. >>> >>> After some real hand-on experience with the current branching policy >>> of Automake, I'm convinced the presence of the 'branch-X.Y' branches >>> is just an annoyance and a source of confusion, and that a better policy >>> would be to simply have a 'maint' branch (where to cut maintenance >>> releases directly from), a master branch (where maint is to be kept >>> regularly merged into, and from which the next major release is to be >>> derived at last), and possibly topic branches (only when needed, and >>> better if they are short-lived). Maybe we could also re-add the 'next' >>> branch to serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, but >>> than can be done in a second time (and only if the need arise). >>> >>> When a major release is done, the master branch is to be merged into >>> the maint branch, and then a "new" master branch created stemming >>> from the resulting commit. >> >> I think what you are proposing is better described as dropping the >> maint branch and doing development of features for both the stable >> series as well as the pending major release directly on the stable >> branch. >> > Absolutely not. In 'maint' will go bugfixes, minor new features > (with low protability of regressions), and possibly new warnings for > obsoleted features (that might be removed when we pass to a future > "major" version). In master will go "bigger" new feature, non-trivial > refactorings, and backward-incompatible changes (after their coming > has been duly announced and prepared in 'maint' and/or in earlier > releases). Ok, you didn't understand what I meant with dropping maint instead of release. My bad. I think the rest is just follow-up-confusion resulting from that misunderstanding. I'll try to explain what I mean again... I think we should do exactly as you describe above. However, for the class of changes that are related to the actual release from maint we should not use the maint branch, and therefore we need three branches. I.e. we should not commit, to maint, exactly those changes that we do not want on master but still want in the maintenance releases. E.g. we will *never* want the change bumping the version from 1.12.3 to 1.12.4 on master. Now, if we do not have both maint and branch-1.12, we will have to jump through hoops to not get those changes into master when we next merge maint into master. I see two alternatives if there is no branch-1.12 (but see below, near the end, when I think of a third option with short-lived branches) 1. resolve the merge conflicts, and hope that all changes that we don't want on master really do result in conflicts so that we don't neglect to fix them up in the merge. 2. merge from maint into master before the release-related commits and then do a dummy merge (--strategy=ours) afterwards so that the changes are ignored when we do a real merge later. And hope that no real changes have weaseled their way into the "release window" between the pre-release merge and the dummy post-release merge. I just happen to think those hoops are a worse cure than the disease (an extra branch) they are targeting. I.e., I think that maintenance releases should happen from a separate branch from maint, so that maint always merges as cleanly as possible into master. That separate branch is branch-x.y. I fail to see what is wrong with the current setup. So, how do you intend to jump through the hoops described above without the extra branch? I only see one argument for killing the third branch, and that is the msvc confusion. And yes, we did make a mess of it with the msvc branch, but we have learned and will not be so easily duped into pulling in changes in branch-x.y without going via the maint branch the next time we have the urge to merge a topic-branch with code suitable for master into a maintenance release. > This is basically the situation we have today, but without the extra > indirections and possibility of confusion (i.e., another 'msvc'-style > mess will be made less likely). I think we have learned that lesson, I don't think we will mess up like that again. I therefore do not think it's a valid argument for killing the third branch. >> When you wish to make a new release you simply make sure >> you have merged the latest branch-x.y into master, then create a new >> branch-x. or branch-.0 from where the current master is >> and you're done. >> > You mean that if we have just released automake 1.13, the release > 1.13.1 should be cut from master? That is absolutely *not* what I > want to do. Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly enough. That's of course not what I meant. Make that "When you wish to make a new release-series". I.e. when you have released 1.14.5 and want to release 1.15 (or 2.0 or whatever else non-maintenance). >>> WDYT? If you agree, I can apply the change below to HACKING, and >>> implement the new branching policy starting from the Automke 1.12 >>> release. >> >> Consider what will happen if you don't have maint branches, >> >> [SNIP] >> > I snip mostly of the rest of your arguments, now that it is clear > I still *want* to have a maint branch. I don't agree that it's a maint branch if you include the commits related to the release on it. By doing that, you have a release branch that is not suitable for merging into master in the way that a maintenance branch would be. >> I think it's immensely more clean to have the current dual maint and >> branch-1.11 approach for each expected bug-fix series. >> > Here I don't follow you. Why are not 'maint' a 'master' enough exactly? See above. >> When 1.12 is released, maint should probably move along with it >> > Yes, and a "new" master created, from which 1.13 will be finally derived. No, you need never create a new master, that's not a sane view of what happens. It's saner to view it as if you branch off whatever you need from master to make the major releases. >> and a maint-1.11 can be created when needed, if a security fix is ever >> needed for the 1.11 series. >> > Agreed. But we don't need this branch right away, since the last commit > in the 'maint' of the 1.11.x series will be properly tagged, so we can > easily access need and create a bug-fix branch out of it if and when the > need arises. Yes, but that's no argument for killing the current three branch system. >> Hopefully, we will not need a maint-1.11, but such things >> are as they are... >> > OK, so it sounds like we are in violent agreement in this matter. We agree on most things, but not on the thing you want to do, namely kill one of the three branches. >> Either that, or you'd need to do dummy merges from branch-x.y into >> master after the release-related commits just to avoid future merge >> conflicts, but dummy merges are ugly in my opinion. And branches are >> cheap. >> > Tags even more -- you don't pay them with the risk of confusion. > >> I think we have learned not to merge new features past the maintenance >> branch (i.e. directly into the release branch) >> > Huh? That *exactly* what should happen most of the time! It's the > AM_PROG_AR situation that was an unusual case, in that we didn't want > the delay in the 1.12 release to keep this useful and low-risk feature > as "vaporware" for even more time -- so we merged it into the > maintenance branch. No, we merged it into the release branch. We only merged it into the maintenance branch later. *time passes* Hmmm, do you perhaps mean to create short-lived branches based on maint for each release? I.e. approximately this, I'm sure I'm missing some detail... # time for major release git checkout master git merge maint git checkout maint git branch maint-1.11 # in case we happen to need it later git merge master # fast-forward, no commit needed git branch release-1.12 git checkout release-1.12 # do version number bumps etc on release-1.12 git tag v1.12 git checkout master git branch -D release-1.12 # time passes # time for minor release git checkout maint git branch release-1.12.1 git checkout release-1.12.1 # do version number bumps etc on release-1.12.1 git tag v1.12.1 git checkout maint git branch -D release-1.12.1 In that case, that works for me and all objections dropped, and sorry for not getting it right away... Cheers, Peter From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 04 05:50:50 2012 Received: (at 11153) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2012 09:50:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39063 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SFMrZ-0004iD-EU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 05:50:50 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]:43133) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SFMrX-0004i6-4g for 11153@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 05:50:48 -0400 Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so78078bku.3 for <11153@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 02:50:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xQapFL/539BKdstXTyKohcEwCT7mAMg75y2iBO+OPAQ=; b=GvL5D7vc65bEkMcIZmiGLMH1RRXdU0PBpvemUnuKvkc0ETQuGkJQGt22I5nWILGsK2 eneQyW+FQrDWJ6nDB3DltPeQfVm+FdYcSgTpD1g42dc+MVy+KMbIdYu9E0ydu8hOotRa +Vck8u6p/cDzMbeBmgACfZhnwCr3QNfNog96JOnD7PAwAajtLAfwH+OpHHRTOQv4DLs4 ulgRd0gBcdA/BFbvF4oQTr3SqGiBUuGzPaN/Cu1FLs81qpfU2tHu/Knj+L37isXJ8wJF /+op5E3huBFxF+0YybpLKwcSFRBGEQadoPesBHBQ+sqGDrZPK0RtfazX6vF8TaQLXvLG R+TA== Received: by 10.205.137.14 with SMTP id im14mr7061929bkc.137.1333533019677; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 02:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [79.7.94.4] (host4-94-dynamic.7-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.7.94.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u5sm446185bka.5.2012.04.04.02.50.18 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 02:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F7C1959.2090003@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:50:17 +0200 From: Stefano Lattarini MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Rosin Subject: Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future References: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> <4F79EC84.2020602@lysator.liu.se> <4F7A0122.1020306@gmail.com> <4F7A21B6.9020007@lysator.liu.se> In-Reply-To: <4F7A21B6.9020007@lysator.liu.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 11153 Cc: 11153@debbugs.gnu.org, automake-patches@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) On 04/03/2012 12:01 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > > [SNIP] > > I'll try to explain what I mean again... > > I think we should do exactly as you describe above. However, for the > class of changes that are related to the actual release from maint > Changes which, actually, consist just in *bumping a version number* in NEWS and in the AC_INIT invocation in configure (in our current setup at least). > we shouldn't use the maint branch, and therefore we need three branches. > I.e. we should not commit, to maint, exactly those changes that we do > not want on master but still want in the maintenance releases. > E.g. we will *never* want the change bumping the version from 1.12.3 to > 1.12.4 on master. Now, if we do not have both maint and branch-1.12, > we will have to jump through hoops to not get those changes into master > when we next merge maint into master. > No, we will just have a merge conflict on the version number -- that is very trivial to solve. I don't think introducing an extra branch just to avoiding this slight and seldom-occurring annoyance would be warranted. > I see two alternatives if there is no branch-1.12 (but see below, > near the end, when I think of a third option with short-lived branches) > > 1. resolve the merge conflicts, and hope that all changes that > we don't want on master really do result in conflicts so that > we don't neglect to fix them up in the merge. > The point is that *we want all the changes of the maintenance branch to be merged master*. That is basically what we have today, and it seems to me it has worked out pretty well (apart from the msvc mess-up, but that happened *exactly* because we didn't have the maintenance branch truly merged into master for a while -- causing all sort of useless conflicts and divergences and confusion). > 2. merge from maint into master before the release-related commits > and then do a dummy merge (--strategy=ours) afterwards so that > the changes are ignored when we do a real merge later. And > hope that no real changes have weaseled their way into the "release > window" between the pre-release merge and the dummy post-release > merge. > Again, the only changes a release-related commit should do is to bump the version number in configure.ac and NEWS; there's hardly a way for any real change to "weasel its way" into master this way, no? > I just happen to think those hoops are a worse cure than the disease > (an extra branch) they are targeting. I.e., I think that maintenance > releases should happen from a separate branch from maint, so that > maint always merges as cleanly as possible into master. That separate > branch is branch-x.y. I fail to see what is wrong with the current > setup. > Basically, we have a dead-weight branch (branch-1.11) whose only difference from maint is the version number in configure.in (and, at the moment, some extra differences in NEWS, which are just a further source of confusion and possible errors). > So, how do you intend to jump through the hoops described above > without the extra branch? > I don't, because there are no real hoops to jump through IMHO -- more likely a single step to be climbed up and down once every time we do a maintenance release (so, once a month at most, counting beta releases as well). > I only see one argument for killing the third branch, and that is the > msvc confusion. And yes, we did make a mess of it with the msvc branch, > but we have learned and will not be so easily duped into pulling in > changes in branch-x.y without going via the maint branch the next time > we have the urge to merge a topic-branch with code suitable for master > into a maintenance release. > So, if any "meaty" change for the maintenance branch 'branch-X.Y' is to pass for 'maint' first -- what is the point of having this 'branch-X.Y'? It's just dead weight. >> This is basically the situation we have today, but without the extra >> indirections and possibility of confusion (i.e., another 'msvc'-style >> mess will be made less likely). > > I think we have learned that lesson, I don't think we will mess up like > that again. I therefore do not think it's a valid argument for killing > the third branch. > The real reason I have to want to kill the third branch is that it's utterly useless with our current git setup. > > [SMALL SNIP] > >> I snip mostly of the rest of your arguments, now that it is clear >> I still *want* to have a maint branch. > > I don't agree that it's a maint branch if you include the commits > related to the release on it. By doing that, you have a release > branch that is not suitable for merging into master in the way that > a maintenance branch would be. > I still don't understand why it isn't suitable... surely not because we'll have to solve the spurious merge conflict in the version number once a month, right? >>> I think it's immensely more clean to have the current dual maint and >>> branch-1.11 approach for each expected bug-fix series. >>> >> Here I don't follow you. Why are not 'maint' a 'master' enough exactly? > > See above. > >>> When 1.12 is released, maint should probably move along with it >>> >> Yes, and a "new" master created, from which 1.13 will be finally derived. > > No, you need never create a new master, that's not a sane view of > what happens. > Let me explain in more details what I meant by "creating a new master branch". With my proposed setup, just after the (say) 1.12 major release ,you merge master into maint, bump the version number on both master (to 1.12a) and maint (to 1.12.1a), re-merge maint into master (fixing the spurious conflict on the version number), and christen this new state of master as the "new master branch". > It's saner to view it as if you branch off whatever you need from master > to make the major releases. > I'd rather follow the example of git.git, which cuts the releases directly from the 'master' and 'maint' branch: $ cd ~/src/git && git log maint commit cb2ed324fc917db0b79d7b1f3756575ffa5f70d5 Author: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon Apr 2 13:07:58 2012 -0700 Git 1.7.9.6 Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano commit b52ab19d91015ebd6bebc83a82b2c3d64b948b36 Merge: b8939b2 d387868 Author: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon Apr 2 12:56:35 2012 -0700 Merge branch 'jc/maint-merge-autoedit' into maint * jc/maint-merge-autoedit: merge: backport GIT_MERGE_AUTOEDIT support commit b8939b2b3abaa99c18bf57251cd2828b89ac38c5 Author: Heiko Voigt Date: Thu Mar 29 09:21:22 2012 +0200 string-list: document that string_list_insert() inserts unique strings Signed-off-by: Heiko Voigt Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano commit 8ced9c90a28f6abc80dc5ad4cf7921c2322c0bb0 Author: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon Mar 26 12:23:34 2012 -0700 Git 1.7.9.5 Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano ... > > [SNIP] > >>> I think we have learned not to merge new features past the maintenance >>> branch (i.e. directly into the release branch) >>> >> Huh? That *exactly* what should happen most of the time! It's the >> AM_PROG_AR situation that was an unusual case, in that we didn't want >> the delay in the 1.12 release to keep this useful and low-risk feature >> as "vaporware" for even more time -- so we merged it into the >> maintenance branch. > > No, we merged it into the release branch. We only merged it into > the maintenance branch later. > Yes, that's what I meant, sorry for the confusion. But then again, if we should merge any change in maint before placing it in branch-1.11 (as we do today, not willing to repeat the msvc error): what is the point of branch-1.11? > > *time passes* > > Hmmm, do you perhaps mean to create short-lived branches based on > maint for each release? > > [SNIP] > This too would be a viable solution, and I indeed thought about it, but it seems overkill to me. So no, that's not what I meant, and you had not misunderstood me. Regards, Stefano From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 04 06:56:25 2012 Received: (at 11153) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2012 10:56:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39085 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SFNt3-0006F2-3A for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 06:56:25 -0400 Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se ([130.236.254.3]:45644) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SFNsy-0006Er-S5 for 11153@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 06:56:22 -0400 Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BA840018; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:55:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.150] (h57n3fls301o1095.telia.com [81.230.178.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0534940016; Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:55:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4F7C28B7.4090500@lysator.liu.se> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:55:51 +0200 From: Peter Rosin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefano Lattarini Subject: Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future References: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> <4F79EC84.2020602@lysator.liu.se> <4F7A0122.1020306@gmail.com> <4F7A21B6.9020007@lysator.liu.se> <4F7C1959.2090003@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7C1959.2090003@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 11153 Cc: 11153@debbugs.gnu.org, automake-patches@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) On 2012-04-04 11:50, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 04/03/2012 12:01 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> >> [SNIP] >> >> I'll try to explain what I mean again... >> >> I think we should do exactly as you describe above. However, for the >> class of changes that are related to the actual release from maint >> > Changes which, actually, consist just in *bumping a version number* in > NEWS and in the AC_INIT invocation in configure (in our current setup > at least). Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I just know that I hate those version conflicts in other (proprietary) git repos I'm using. But since I'm probably not going to have to deal with it anyway, I guess that as long as you're happy with it, I'm sure it's going to work out.. BTW, your log of the maint branch in git.git does not show how they handle the version merge conflicts (or if they merge maint into master at all, I have zero knowledge of how git uses their maint branch). Cheers, Peter From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 04 07:39:20 2012 Received: (at 11153) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2012 11:39:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39122 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SFOYZ-00080I-JP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:39:20 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]:49448) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SFOYX-000809-BT for 11153@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 07:39:18 -0400 Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so169812bku.3 for <11153@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 04:38:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=c2b45P1nqu7luLBOomD8u+MFkz0Vl86AVXZKZEZUpFI=; b=y1GsREAY5LZ/RoAXnO/0KrjULDI7Mh38Xz2m9QxPv3nlH7KsjY6EC/LrYq30zd1HU3 jZfu5CPF4g678EICSFaRNu6h296E2jc6oiaohagQbvd/QRT6PwjmLMVPdjfEc+B7rr+S 73DqRchSgWljvsbtrh+COgCmitbmm3kDZQFXmNgxcDqAu5j2snMrgVRPugD6QJodD4XV KKi9yG93b86M3XYdRm4iRLh8zxqKuYGQnX1/b9TOIN50IcLNw6K0evWe05Zq2sbwp2Xz aqVlIlDOA5N13C6AFsbsEhziQr+kdqd3B/f4tzlKCMLD4eA95qjjQnfkKN1AK2n5+aHb g1aw== Received: by 10.204.155.143 with SMTP id s15mr6864171bkw.44.1333539529530; Wed, 04 Apr 2012 04:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [79.7.94.4] (host4-94-dynamic.7-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.7.94.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u5sm1189305bka.5.2012.04.04.04.38.48 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 Apr 2012 04:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F7C32C1.6010006@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:38:41 +0200 From: Stefano Lattarini MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Rosin Subject: Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future References: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> <4F79EC84.2020602@lysator.liu.se> <4F7A0122.1020306@gmail.com> <4F7A21B6.9020007@lysator.liu.se> <4F7C1959.2090003@gmail.com> <4F7C28B7.4090500@lysator.liu.se> In-Reply-To: <4F7C28B7.4090500@lysator.liu.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 11153 Cc: 11153@debbugs.gnu.org, automake-patches@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) On 04/04/2012 12:55 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > On 2012-04-04 11:50, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On 04/03/2012 12:01 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> >>> [SNIP] >>> >>> I'll try to explain what I mean again... >>> >>> I think we should do exactly as you describe above. However, for the >>> class of changes that are related to the actual release from maint >>> >> Changes which, actually, consist just in *bumping a version number* in >> NEWS and in the AC_INIT invocation in configure (in our current setup >> at least). > > Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree then. > That's fine, I just wanted to be sure there were no misunderstandings nor incomprehension. > I just know that I hate those > version conflicts in other (proprietary) git repos I'm using. But since > I'm probably not going to have to deal with it anyway, I guess that as > long as you're happy with it, I'm sure it's going to work out.. > OK, thanks. Too bad I couldn't win you over to my side though. And anyway, if it turns out my expectation about these version conflicts are overly optimistic, we can revert to the old branch setup from 1.13 onwards (or even implement you suggestion about "a temporary branch for each release"). > BTW, your log of the maint branch in git.git does not show how they > handle the version merge conflicts > I'm not sure about this either; we might end up asking them some day ... > (or if they merge maint into master at all, > Yes they do, as easily shown by gitk. > I have zero knowledge of how git uses their maint branch). > For more info, you might take a look at the "REPOSITORIES, BRANCHES AND DOCUMENTATION" section of: Regards, Stefano From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 11 11:48:59 2012 Received: (at 11153) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2012 15:48:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52261 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SHzn0-000146-Si for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:48:59 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44]:34662) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SHzmx-00013t-4B for 11153@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:48:56 -0400 Received: by bkuw5 with SMTP id w5so782400bku.3 for <11153@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:47:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; bh=4KZQ/a/4gWGUu1IHU3oLCLcddGkCEcwEGwJ3qpTr9p4=; b=CzXUX5pvp7AOD8Lya5bIio35O80t3u9Mx9lp9e9A97g0Cl9gftnPTKfzUNnD/Zzyla wk11TdDb9zp4T5Fv4pvQdVhpKWFJvzXt0R2ugwC5VeG9OVX/6N6nNpBUGgenXbiU4kOr gpQQYcC9dHw+zDQHzkO/uqskTcg1r0yegw4lBk/x1jQ996LSNzVCn941kGJOh6HbyIG6 7vfuyJy2n+xaR5D84Q8haJdjqCOEzmnq8t0Jc8L3OIhB6V22hVfTbFiwbJhwYgzEJU36 VpUCN9M6xmdArW+j8I+MxLDu3qJb6tMeTZDgHqd/6hyDljkEV9A0yxyaDtXbhlW5cneT H4kQ== Received: by 10.204.12.10 with SMTP id v10mr5901519bkv.1.1334159266635; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:47:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [82.60.30.201] (host201-30-dynamic.60-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [82.60.30.201]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id jr13sm5670348bkb.14.2012.04.11.08.47.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:47:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F85A79D.5080803@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:47:41 +0200 From: Stefano Lattarini MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Rosin Subject: Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future References: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> <4F79EC84.2020602@lysator.liu.se> <4F7A0122.1020306@gmail.com> <4F7A21B6.9020007@lysator.liu.se> <4F7C1959.2090003@gmail.com> <4F7C28B7.4090500@lysator.liu.se> <4F7C32C1.6010006@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7C32C1.6010006@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------060102060003090103010202" X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 11153 Cc: 11153@debbugs.gnu.org, automake-patches@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060102060003090103010202 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04/04/2012 01:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 04/04/2012 12:55 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > >> Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree then. >> > That's fine, I just wanted to be sure there were no misunderstandings nor > incomprehension. > I've pushed the attached patch to 'master' now. I will wait to close this report until Automake 1.12 is released and the new branching/merging policy is in place though. Regards, Stefano --------------060102060003090103010202 Content-Type: text/x-diff; name="0001-hacking-described-new-branching-policy-for-1.12-an-l.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*0="0001-hacking-described-new-branching-policy-for-1.12-an-l.pa"; filename*1="tch" >From 678de655e93ef9136281f8aa792f3722d12a740f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 Message-Id: <678de655e93ef9136281f8aa792f3722d12a740f.1334159107.git.stefano.lattarini@gmail.com> From: Stefano Lattarini Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:16:38 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] hacking: described new branching policy for 1.12 an later This change closes automake bug#11153. * HACKING (Working with git): Document the new policy for automake branching and merging, which will start being applied after 1.12 is released: - the maintenance branch will be 'maint', and we will cut the maintenance releases directly from there; - the development branch will be 'master', and we will cut the new releases directly from there; - 'maint' will be kept regularly merged into 'master'. Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini --- HACKING | 53 ++++++++++++++++------------------------------------- 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING index 29c0e4a..8d3471f 100644 --- a/HACKING +++ b/HACKING @@ -103,37 +103,22 @@ latest stable version of Autoconf installed and available early in your PATH. -* The git tree currently carries a number of branches: master for the - current development, and release branches named branch-X.Y. The maint - branch serves as common ground for both master and the active release - branches. Changes intended for both should be applied to maint, which - should then be merged to release branches and master, of course after - suitable testing. It is advisable to merge only after a set of related - commits have been applied. - -* Example work flow for patches to maint: - - # 1. Checkout the "maint" branch: - git checkout maint - - # 2. Apply the patch(es) with "git am" (or create them with $EDITOR): - git am -3 0*.patch - # 2a. Run required tests, if any ... - - # 3. Merge maint into branch-1.11: - git checkout branch-1.11 - git merge maint - # 3a. Run required tests, if any ... - - # 4. Redo steps 3 and 3a for master: - git checkout master - git merge maint - # testing ... - - # 5. Push the maint and master branches: - git push --dry-run origin maint branch-1.11 master - # if all seems ok, then actually push: - git push origin maint branch-1.11 master +* The Automake git tree currently carries two basic branches: 'master' for + the current development, and 'maint' for maintenance and bug fixes. The + maint branch should be kept regularly merged into the master branch. + It is advisable to merge only after a set of related commits have been + applied, to avoid introducing too much noise in the history. + +* There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for new + developments. They should be based off of a common ancestor of all + active branches to which the feature should or might be merged later. + in the future, we might introduce a special branch named 'next' that + may serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, should + they not yet be ready for master. + +* After a major release is done, the master branch is to be merged into + the maint branch, and then a "new" master branch created stemming + from the resulting commit. * When fixing a bug (especially a long-standing one), it may be useful to commit the fix to a new temporary branch based off the commit that @@ -141,12 +126,6 @@ the active branches descending from the buggy commit. This offers a simple way to fix the bug consistently and effectively. -* There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for new developments. - They should be based off of a common ancestor of all active branches to - which the feature should or might be merged later. The next branch may - serve as common ground for feature merging and testing, should they not - be ready for master yet. - * For merges from branches other than maint, prefer 'git merge --log' over plain 'git merge', so that a later 'git log' gives an indication of which actual patches were merged even when they don't appear early in the list. -- 1.7.9 --------------060102060003090103010202-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Apr 25 17:32:27 2012 Received: (at 11153-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Apr 2012 21:32:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53136 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SN9p4-0003IL-Vc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:32:27 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com ([74.125.82.172]:61249) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SN9p3-0003I9-LW for 11153-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:32:26 -0400 Received: by werb10 with SMTP id b10so381739wer.3 for <11153-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:31:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vNwztQsyWSY/veXVWzxdGiIDPkYxJJD/ACb3pyB0Tgo=; b=cVquJsXYMPFT5ani1oylSwipYoRFRJjkLC0sQ/uXgKU8Gi3/xhbNiJNAhQcKv15uVU 0LU8STX2E6kq++xxnXTwOk5zoMljIw5mWcbiC0klw7V1K5M9/jyKUX8+GgopbyZY1b68 HLek7fHVaRwAtqsBLXoDcCpTqpVwEOAQrAuQfUOGtn3YDu3MW39n2Cpn/5kagEP4ngC5 c0K3+WwEO/5xzmZ/mgKtK/2yA64/KLxl6OxW6v8uB9W2FUj1Duhcwtexx562PM5mVeay W3sNtU4oB2fPXe8k+0UpM16l5yuJ7FNXoQq1hF1XHIdDTMVO6loVn414Bb141im3NzmS bmJA== Received: by 10.216.135.234 with SMTP id u84mr2600706wei.108.1335389485059; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [87.0.97.155] (host155-97-dynamic.0-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [87.0.97.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e6sm40089941wix.8.2012.04.25.14.31.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F986D29.6030702@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:31:21 +0200 From: Stefano Lattarini MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "automake-patches@gnu.org" Subject: Re: bug#11153: change automake branching policy: dispensing with the 'branch-X.Y' branches in the future References: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F79D00F.1030003@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 11153-done Cc: 11153-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) I've now implemented the proposed branching setup, with the following steps: - I have removed the old and outdated 'next' branch (which was an ancestor of the current 'master'). - I have removed the 'branch-1.11' branch (whose tip pointed at the commit tagged by tag 'v1.11.5'). - Now that 1.12 is out, I've merged master into maint (with a non fast-forward merge to keep this action visible in git history); - I have updated the version number in maint to 1.12.0a; - I have merged this new maint into master; - Finally, I have updated the version number in master to 1.12a. I'm thus closing this bug report. Let's hope the new policy will work out for the best! Thanks, Stefano From unknown Mon Jun 23 14:59:49 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 11:24:03 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator