[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [lwip-devel] devel vs stable cvs

From: Leon Woestenberg
Subject: Re: [lwip-devel] devel vs stable cvs
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:22:56 +0100

Hello Jani and others,

> I wonder whether a more conventional model of CVS/release wouldn't be more
appopriate for lwip, seeing that people don't really test devel if they have
another CVS branch.
> While many people _do_ tend to keep up with CVS.
> I recall the original reason for devel was that Leon did some potentially
invasive changes so he made a separate branch for them. I still think when
something as big happens a branch is welcome to avoid unnecessary trouble
but for most work which has been goin on lately in devel and because it
happened at a slow speed - a few commits a week people could be a lot more
helpful provding feedback on regressions the moment they appear. We already
got two such regressions and devel was only recently been merged
> Also the tcp_pcb->ack list bug Karl Jeacle noticed was on devel hence it
did not bother people for months showning that CVS stable is preffered.

> What do you think?
I agree with the findings that bugs show up earlier when they are in the
main tree; my impression exactly.

How about the following model:

- Bug fixes are allowed in main.
- Invasive changes, new features and bug fixes are allowed in DEVEL.

Note that this would require bidirectional merging which is a real pain in
the *ss if you ask me! (We now do development on DEVEL only, and
merge unidirectionally back into main).

My preference would be for everyone just testing DEVEL :-)

An alternative would be increased an frequency of merging. Unidirectional
mergers can be automated by a Unix script, as long as the target (main)
is not touched inbetween. This is the case with lwIP.

> Not to mention the confusions merging, and those weird version numbers
cause in CVS.
> means the file was branched of 1.44 in main, and is on revision 5
in the branch.
I kind of got used to the versioning scheme...

> When savannah will provide something better in this regard like subversion
or arch this will change but this is not the main point.
> I really think that dosing the changes and people catching up with them
one by one instead of all at once is going to be better.
If it helps improve the development of lwIP, I agree with your proposal.

I wonder what other developers think about it?



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]