[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Opening trunk for post-lenny changes?


IIRC, we never used to keep trunk closed during release periods;
instead, we used to create a branch, do all the release work off that,
and open trunk for post-release changes.

I have to say that I've been feeling quite frustrated with the extended
closure of trunk. There's lots of post-lenny stuff I'd like to check in,
and while I could send patches in bug reports, and have done so in a few
cases of more significant work I've been doing, I'd really like to get
back to being able to commit directly.

I'm not expecting to be able to upload to unstable for some time,
obviously, but could we please open trunk for general commits?

There appear to be rather few discrepancies between /branches/d-i/lenny
and the archive, in any case. They are:

    Archive has 1.2, /branches/d-i/lenny has 1.3.
    Archive has 0.9, /branches/d-i/lenny has 0.10 (UNRELEASED).
  linux-kernel-di-m68k-2.6, linux-modules-di-m68k-2.6
    Not sure about these - remind me where the archive is again?
    /branches/d-i/lenny has 0.96 and 1.00 respectively, the latter
    Archive has 1.30, /branches/d-i/lenny has 1.31 (UNRELEASED).
    Not in archive, probably correctly. /branches/d-i/lenny has 0.03.
    Probably in the m68k archive, as above, so I don't have the archive
    version number. /branches/d-i/lenny has 1.18.
    Archive has 0.6.9, /branches/d-i/lenny also has 0.6.9 but

I don't know which of these are intentional, if any, but it doesn't seem
that hard to roll back the few places where /branches/d-i/lenny is
ahead, and bring win32-loader into sync. If somebody can confirm that
this is desirable then I'm willing to do the legwork.

The only downside to opening trunk for general commits seems to be that
translators would have to start operating on /branches/d-i/lenny as
well. Christian, is this straightforward and can you provide guidance? I
seem to remember that we did this before.

(An alternative would be to have a shared post-lenny branch that we
*all* commit to; distributed revision control is great but the
centralised model is useful for making sure everyone's going in roughly
the same direction, and at any rate I'd want to have things merged to a
primary branch anyway. However, this would make the Bazaar imports I use
rather messier and so I'd prefer us to just open trunk instead. We'd
have the same translation problem in reverse in any case.)


Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]

Reply to: