GNU bug report logs - #13578
A new versioning scheme for automake releases, and a new branching scheme for the Git repository

Previous Next

Full log

Message #186 received at 13578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
To: Miles Bader <miles <at> gnu.org>
Cc: automake <at> gnu.org, Nate Bargmann <n0nb <at> n0nb.us>, 13578 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#13578: [IMPORTANT] Savannah issues
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:35:31 +0100

On 02/28/2013 09:12 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com> 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

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.