Re: branching

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 01:04:16PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> 
> On 4/16/11 12:50 PM, "Han-Wen Nienhuys" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > My proposal is that "ready-to-release" still is not strict enough for
> > stable, so 2.14 version should be coming from something which moves
> > slower than the master branch.
> 
> So does this mean we need three branches?
> 
> stable  (currently 2.12.x)
> stable beta (currently stable/2.14)
> development (currently 2.13.x)

Well, we already have more than three branches.  In your scheme,
they'd be stable/2.12, stable/2.14, and master.

> It seems to me that we ought to have three releases available:
> 
> stable -- demonstrated to work properly
> stable beta -- all syntax from stable works, passes regtests, but not
> demonstrated to be critical regression free.  Should be acceptable for
> general release, but not for production work.
> development -- passes regtests.  Recommended for developers and adventurous
> users, but possibility exists for syntax changes.
> 
> Does this seem feasible?

I'm not going to make three releases, because it's too confusing
for users.  We'll have two releases: stable and unstable.

At the moment, we only have unstable releases happening.  They
happen from stable/2.14.  Anybody wanting to play with git master
right now needs to compile from source.

Once 2.14 is out, we'll have stable releases happening from
stable/2.14 and unstable releases happening from git master.

Cheers,
- Graham