"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr@rudbek.com> writes:
At 22:30 2006-01-25, Robert Ramey wrote:
Thomas Witt wrote:
I have doubts that we have the infrastructure in place that would be needed for this. This might be different once we switched to subversion.
I'm quite sure we don't have the infrastructure in place. My motivation is to to start a discussion that might result in movement to such an infrastructure. The last cycle lasted from july (initial projected release date)
I thought someone originally said release on April 15. btw, I notice we're planning on (again <sigh>) putting all the release stuff on a "tagged branch" then _manually_ changing all the regression test machines to test on the "release branch" with all the chaos that attends.
How much effort is that _manual_ change? More than a couple <sigh>s worth?
I won't argue this time, I'll simply summarize. Leave the release stuff on the HEAD branch and tell developers who want to mess around with stuff that's NOT going to be in 1.34 to simply make their OWN branch and go work on it.
I agree with Victor; keeping the trunk in releaseable state is the right thing to do. On the other hand, anytime we do a point release, testers will have to be operating on a branch, so I don't see how this is going to help _them_ very much. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com