Re: [Monotone-devel] branch management

[Thomas Keller]

Am 07.12.10 19:11, schrieb Hendrik Boom:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:47:23PM +0100, Thomas Keller wrote:
>> 1) If a new branch is created off trunk for a patch release and you make
>> your first commit, its your responsibility to change the version number
>> to "0.<minor>.<patch + 1>dev" for mtn < 1.0. If we follow the new
>> proposed version numbering scheme, this would mean
>> <major>.<minor>.<patch>.90 for new patch versions, which eventually gets
>> <major>.<minor>.<patch + 1>, but I'm open for other - less ugly -
>> suggestions here.
> 
> Do we run the risk of several patch branches being extant simultaneously 
> and ending up with the same 0.minor.patch+1 number?  Presumably this 
> would have to be changed when finally merging the patch.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean with "extant simultaneously" -
these releases are all made by a single person and the branches are
probably also only touched by one person at a time, so there is little
to no risk that two people start on a patch in some release branch
without communicating with each other.

>> Since 0.48 is quite around I think it makes sense to support this a
>> little longer - at least until Debian moves to a newer version - and
>> backport important stuff as needed.
> 
> That'll be a long time, sonce 0.48 is currentl;y Debian testing, and 
> will be around as stable for a very long time.  Unless we can get 1.0 
> into testing before the release.  Which I consider unlikely.

Right, 0.48 will haunt us just a little longer, thats why I vote to
support it a bit more "officially" - see my other reply.

Thomas.

-- 
GPG-Key 0x160D1092 | address@hidden | http://thomaskeller.biz
Please note that according to the EU law on data retention, information
on every electronic information exchange might be retained for a period
of six months or longer: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/?lang=en

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature