Re: Branching off 2.2

On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 01:33 +0100, J.M. Maurer wrote:
> Op wo, 29-12-2004 te 10:42 +1100, schreef
> msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au:
>
> > We should get a consesus amongst the candidates to maintain 2.2 branch
> > (hub,mg,uwog others...) to actually maintain the 2.2 branch. ie Be
> > prepared to backport fixes to 2.2, do periodic releases and keep it
> > generally happy.

        I can't seem to overcome certain peoples' egoes and whims and I have
better things to do with my life than be powerlessly responsible for
them. Among those three I nominate uwog, and as an aside I would have
the utmost confidence in sum1, if and only if sum1 has an interest.

> >
> > Also we should work out a consesus for applying bug fixes.
> >
> > Some options we have would be:
> >
> > 1. Fix bugs in HEAD and ask 2.2 maintainers to backport.
> > 2. Fix bugs in STABLE and ask a new volenteer to forward port.
> > 3. Fix bugs in BOTH with a single commit.
> >
> > >From my perspective I would prefer 1.
> >
> > I know hub has expressed a desire for us to use 2. Mark has argued against
> > this.
>
> I never had any problems with 1. But I wouldn't be against 2 either. I
> think 1 is simpler for developers, as they then only need to have 1
> branch (HEAD).
>

        I never had any problems with 1 and I never argued against 2, what I
argued against was sweeping judgements about all fixes needing to go one
way or the other. For minor, unintrusive, unlikely-regressive, and
same-for-both-lines fixes, any of 1, 2, and 3 works, the important part
being that the fix happens and not where the acting coder finds it most
convenient. For intrusive fixes, possibly regressive fixes, and
anything that requires divergent infrastructure in HEAD, 1 is IMO the
only option. Using 3 for trivial and no-risk fixes means less
administrative overhead for the maintainer, but that administrative
overhead really is negligible compared to the fix happening _somewhere_,
and being ported where applicable.

> Whichever it turns out to be, I'd vulonteer to do backports, 'as
> always'.
>
> I'd volunteer to maintain 2.2.x as well. Feel free to pick other
> candidates though.

I could always add a few LOC to Scrambler (-:

-MG
Received on Wed Dec 29 03:50:12 2004