RE: Branches

[CARTER-HITCHIN, David, GBM]

Hi Jim,

> > That depends on the nature of the tweak.  If the tag 
> represents a live
> > production release, and the promotion is a bugfix, then a 
> new branch is not
> > appropriate imho, as an future releases will come off the 
> main branch, not
> > off this tag.  I suppose it depends on the quantity and 
> duration of the
> > bugfixes though :-)
> 
> That is precisely one case where I would strongly argue the opposite
> case, in fact. If it is simply a bug fix to an existing release, then
> the most appropriate course is to branch from the release, and put the
> bug fix in both the branch and the main development. 
> Don't follow the
> Microsoft release model, where bug fixes get rolled in with 
> new features (which introduce new bugs, thus perpetuating the cycle).

Not sure I understand your reasoning here.  If we:

- branch off HEAD for major releases
- take a tags off the branch for releases

then if a bugfix comes along we generally put it into the current branch
(and into HEAD, if appropriate, which it generally is) and then promote the
bugfix revision which is on the branch to the current production tag and
release that.  This does not compromise new releases - the bugfix goes to
where it belongs.  I think your suggestion is to branch again from the tag,
but then the bugfix potentially needs to go into three places (HEAD, major
branch and your new branch).  If we get 3 bugfixes on Monday,Tuesday and
Wednesday, we're going to end up with 4 branches by Wednesday afternoon!
Perhaps I misunderstand your scheme.

> ... considered "excessive." Also, quoting entire disclaimers and long
> signatures is almost never necessary.
>
> On the topic of which, please speak with the powers-that-be in your
> organization, and point out to them that automatically appending such
> disclaimers to each and every outgoing message, especially when the
> recipient is a list, dilutes the meaning and effectiveness of 
> the email.

Sorry, it's out of my control.  There are 120,000+ employees here.  Even if
I could track down the relevant person, it is highly unlikely that I could
influence their decision to change it, as it is a legal statement, and
IANAL.  I could show them the relevant part of
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt, but I have extremely low expectations
that it would actually change anything.  Please just snip everything after
"--", that's what it's there for.  Some other lists, like ACCU-general,
which if memory serves me right I've seen you on, have the --LongSig
mecahnism or something similar to do that for you - perhaps that could be
done on this list?

Cheers,

David Carter-Hitchin.
--
Royal Bank of Scotland
Interest Rate Derivatives IT
135 Bishopsgate
LONDON EC2M 3TP

Tel: +44 (0) 207 085 1088

***********************************************************************************
The Royal Bank of Scotland plc. Registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered 
Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB. 
Authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority 
 
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the 
addressee only. If the message is received by anyone other 
than the addressee, please return the message to the sender 
by replying to it and then delete the message from your 
computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The 
Royal Bank of Scotland plc does not accept responsibility for 
changes made to this message after it was sent. 

Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the 
transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to 
ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this 
message and any attachments will not adversely affect its 
systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by The Royal 
Bank of Scotland plc in this regard and the recipient should carry 
out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate. 
Visit our websites at: 
http://www.rbos.com
http://www.rbsmarkets.com 
***********************************************************************************