Re: Countdown to branch?

>
>
> J.M. Maurer wrote:
>>
>> note: you can always create a branch to develop a new feature in, so you
>> can start right away...!
>>
>> Marc
>
> That is a real pain, and you of all people know it. We already have
> ABIMATH branch for developing math and pango stuff, and your dbl units
> branch, and HEAD, which we are suppossed to treat as STABLE. How many
> more flipping braches do we need to get on with things? Really, we
> should have a STABLE branch and HEAD branch; I refuse to maintain more
> than two branches locally, or to have private branches in order to
> develop stuff that we agreed is to go into 2.4 (I can just imagine the
> pain when we try to merge half-a-dozen private HEADs).
>
> I agree with Martin that the present situation is most unsatisfactory,
> and is really not working. Weeks back I have started working on
> pervasive fixes that cannot go into 2.2 in my local copy of the HEAD
> (that is what HEAD is for!), and as a result I only fix bugs that do not
> overlap with my new code (that excludes pretty much all bugs requiring
> touching up PT files, which is most of the crashers) -- is that what the
> present policy envisaged? I am fed up with this state of affairs, and am
> not going to waste my time jumping through hoops to work around what I
> consider bad branching policy. Do you guys want me to continue working
> on fixing up 2.2? Then give me a STABLE!
>

Tomas if you have bugs that require code for 2.4 to fix then these should
be retargeted as 2.4 bugs.

Once we're happy with the state of the fixes in HEAD after branching the
code can be either backported or we tell users to wait until 2.4

I guess the main point is to round up and squash all the fixable 2.2.x bugs.

Cheers

Martin

>
> Tomas,
> peeved off and seriously tempted to tag and branch at this very moment
> so he can commit stuff into head that belongs there.
>
>
Received on Tue Dec 28 13:53:24 2004