Subject: Re: bug#13578: [IMPORTANT] Savannah issues

From: Stefano Lattarini <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:35:31 +0100

On 02/28/2013 09:12 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini <[email-masked]> writes:
>> So we should maybe go (after the next major release) with this naming
>> scheme for the branches?
>>
>>   * maint -> for next micro version
>>   * stable -> for next minor version
>>   * master -> for next major version
> 
> That seems to match common practice, insofar as I understand it...
>
OK, I don't dislike this naming scheme, so I will implement it once 1.14
has been released (at that point, we'll be able to do so without having
to resort to non-fast-forward pushes).  That might take an undetermined
time between a couple of months and forever.

I have no intention of discussing further the bike-shedding of branch
naming, so this naming scheme will be the one we'll use, period.

> [Another consideration is whether you have a single named branch for
> maintenance (e.g. "maint", and "stable"), or just use version-named
> branches (and thus can maintain multiple versions simultaneously).]
>
The former, I only want to have one maintenance branch.  Having several
for older versions is just too work for no real gain (and if a security
fix is needed, bug-fixing branches for several old releases can just be
created on demand without anu fuss).

Thanks for the feedback, and best regards,
  Stefano