[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:56:11 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:03:20PM CEST:
> Albert Chin wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:11:48AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>
> >>So my point is: get HEAD stable now, then branch off and make 2.59/1.9.6
> >>compatible there. Then bootstrap the release with the couple of naughty
> >>system-dependent fixes we know of in those autotools versions.
> >
> >Seems fine to me.
>
> I'm still uncomfortable with this, because we have been commiting
> patches to HEAD that were deemed too destabilizing for branch-2-0,
> and I (for one) don't remember what they were...
Surely there are a few patches which seemed unsafe and a few features we
still might want to change. The first have had quite a bit of testing
exposure. We can mark a couple of the second experimental and bound to
change.
> We have things backwards right now. We should be working on getting
> branch-2-0 stable right now, and forward porting any patches generated
> in so doing to HEAD. The only reason things have tilted the other
> way recently is that we have both been working on big patches that
> were easier to verify by adding tests to the new testsuite.
> *Conceptually*, even these big patches are for branch-2-0, we just
> happened to develop them in the nicer non-frozen HEAD environment.
I believe you just contradicted yourself.
If you put big patches into a release branch, you're by definition _not_
stabilizing it! More to the point: both the recent commits to HEAD as
well as their backports to branch-2-0 will most likely introduce new
bugs, huge as the patches are! I'm especially afraid of the bugs
introduced by the backporting process.
Now, our branch-2-0 testsuite is much inferior, so it's less likely to
_find_ some of these bugs. Add to that the fact that I for one do not
know of one single bug present in HEAD but not in branch-2-0.
This is why I would branch the next stable off of HEAD. And I wouldn't
do it _yet_, but only when all known regressions from HEAD are fixed and
we can start undoing whatever made CVS Autoconf/Automake necessary. And
when we finally do that, we have a chance to *really* make it a couple
of weeks (2!) from branching to releasing an alpha, and then 2 more to
releasing.
Remember that we agreed once that a stable branch per definition should
not need to see any increases in the serial number of the m4 macro files?
This was a prerequisite to having the stable branch not overtake another
development branch. This was one reason I have rejected all interface
changes to branch-1-5. For example, with branch-2-0, we cannot hold
this promise any more and at the same time get our current changes
backported.
Cheers,
Ralf
Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD, Noah Misch, 2005/08/22
Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD, Albert Chin, 2005/08/22
- Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD, Ralf Wildenhues, 2005/08/23
- Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD, Albert Chin, 2005/08/23
- Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD, Gary V. Vaughan, 2005/08/23
- Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD, Albert Chin, 2005/08/23
- Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD, Bob Friesenhahn, 2005/08/23
- Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD, Gary V. Vaughan, 2005/08/23
- Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD, Peter O'Gorman, 2005/08/24
Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD, Gary V. Vaughan, 2005/08/23