octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: 3.2.x


From: Jaroslav Hajek
Subject: Re: 3.2.x
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 21:30:41 +0200

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 5:16 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 23-Sep-2008, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
>
> | On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:13 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> | > On 23-Sep-2008, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> | >
> | > | Anyway, I don't think it's strictly necessary to have all the wanted
> | > | patches before the initial fork happens, we can just as well fork now
> | > | (or in near future) and transplant the patches later if they arrive.
> | >
> | > What would be the purpose of the new branch if we are not ready for a
> | > release?
> | >
> |
> | So that patches that are not intended for 3.2.x could be applied to
> | development branch.
>
> I agree that this could be useful, but do we have any patches in that
> category now?  If possible, I'd prefer to branch after the 3.2.0
> release.
>

Well, but if it's up to me to make the release, the I still need to
branch before doing it. My plan is:
1. You tag a suitable revision in the development archive as the base
for 3-2-x branch.
2. I'll clone that into 3-2-x repo at Thomas' site.
3. Announce 3-2-x RC N ( = 1).
4. Wait for reports.
5. Fix possible problems, N++ and goto 3, or goto 6
6. Announce the release as stable.

Since the release is actually made at point 6, we still need to fork
before 3.2.0 is made. Patches may be transplanted at point 5. And
there is no problem if we want to transplant more patches between 2.
and 3.

If you intend to do the 3.2.0 release under a different scenario, then
please clarify.



-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz


reply via email to

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