Re: [CVS] `br_woody_exp' created, I'm a GNU rewrite the Makefiles.
On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 02:56:07PM -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 07:00:34PM +0300, Michael Sobolev wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 10:43:11AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > I don't really think we need to branch
> > > for potato until it is released. After that, make a branch for keeping up
> > > new versions of boot floppies (which can be incorporated into minor
> > > revisions of the stable release), and the trunk will remain for woody.
> > That's exactly my point. So, to rephrase my question, do we really need
> > to create that br_woody_exp branch now?
>
> Branches are used when you want to do some development without affecting
> the main tree, either because you're working on an old version, or because
> you're making experimental changes that might break things, and you don't
> want to break the main tree. In this case, the main focus is still potato,
> so it should remain HEAD, and people who want to start breaking stuff
> for woody can use the branch without causing problems with the big potato
> push.
But usually the head remains as the "next big release" for new
development, and the "working on stablizing release" is branched off so it
is not affected by experiemental head changes. Check gcc, glibc, openldap
and even the vger CVS for the non-i386 archs of the linux kernel. They all
have the head/trunk as the latest and greatest code, and the stable
releases are branched off so that can remain for further fixing and minor
revisions.
The only time a branch is broken off in the manner you are talking about
is when new things are being merged in. For example, if some one wanted to
do away with dbootstrap, they would create a branch, start merging in
their code and stablize it, then merge it back to the head.
This is not being done properly.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bmc@visi.net '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: