Re: dpkg development cycle
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 05:05:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Thus I'm wondering if we shouldn't follow the linux development model.
> Have a cycle of say one month, merge stuff aggressively during 10 days,
> make an upload to experimental and run the new dpkg on our own computers
> during 20 days more and then upload to unstable (once bugs have been
> ironed out).
>
> In parallel, we should have the liberty of regularly uploading bugfixes
> to unstable (with a version like 1.14.14.{1,2,3}) ... it would only
> contain cherry-picked bugfixes from the master branch.
I would support this proposal.
There are two possible options for the workings of the "stable" branch though
I want to point out:
1) As you described commit everything to "master" and cherry pick the
changes to "stable" if wanted. (backports)
2) Try to decide where to commit beforehand and commit small changes
directly to "stable" and then merge that to "master". (forwardports)
The latter generates more merge commits but less "duplicated" commits.
An example project that uses this model is git itself.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Reply to: