3 Aug
2007
3 Aug
'07
7 p.m.
On 2007-08-03, Stefan Seefeld <seefeld@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Douglas Gregor wrote: > > Yes, and we need to fix the trunk, not devise elaborate processes to > > isolate the "civilized world" of releases from the "wild west" of the > > development trunk. [...] > I'd suggest this: > * establish a 'stable' branch (by copying from RC_1_34_0). [...] > * establish goals for 1.35, [...] > * Discouraging developers to check *anything* into trunk any more, but instead, > encourage the use of branches as a means to backport changes that now are in > trunk, and should go into stable, whether in time for 1.35 or not. For what it's worth, I completely agree with the first and third points here. This development model *does* work. It is the one that I use (and have used) every day for the last 5 years.[*] But for it to work it also requires all the tools changes/fixes that Doug has been saying to get done - the "stable" (or "release branch") must be being tested (and obviously in a more efficient way than it is currently). phil [*] And no, I haven't managed a large open source project release before; I just manage the release of the 20 or 30 interrelated libraries/applications used by multiple projects in my day job. The "process" that we have normally means that I can assemble a release from the non-broken mainlines pretty quickly. Or highlight the integration problems, as the case may be. Of course, I have written quite a lot of tools to help me... -- change name before "@" to "phil" for email