[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Next release from master
From: |
Xue Fuqiao |
Subject: |
Re: Next release from master |
Date: |
Fri, 22 Jan 2016 11:50:47 +0800 |
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 01/21/2016 05:28 PM, Dmitry Gutov wrote:
>>
>> Why not get back to the simpler scheme?
>
> I also don't see the need for three common development branches. Emacs
> developers are already spread pretty thin with two.
>
> I know of a GNU project that has three such branches: Automake. The branches
> are called 'master', 'minor', and 'micro', and have roughly the three roles
> that John suggested. My own impression is that the extra complexity of the
> three branches discouraged contributors ("which branch should this patch go
> into?", that sort of thing).
>
> Automake development is currently moribund.
+1
I think the current process (as described in `admin/release-process' and
`admin/notes/versioning') is good enough. More complexity will
discourage current/potential contributors.
Re: Next release from master, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/18
Re: Next release from master, Glenn Morris, 2016/01/21
Re: Next release from master, John Wiegley, 2016/01/21
Re: Next release from master, Dmitry Gutov, 2016/01/21
Re: Next release from master, John Wiegley, 2016/01/21
Re: Next release from master, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/01/22
Re: Next release from master, John Wiegley, 2016/01/22
Re: Next release from master, Barry Fishman, 2016/01/22
Re: Next release from master, John Wiegley, 2016/01/22
Re: Next release from master, Barry Fishman, 2016/01/22
Re: Next release from master, John Wiegley, 2016/01/22
Re: Next release from master, Alex Bennée, 2016/01/25