Re: [Monotone-devel] branch management

[Hendrik Boom]

On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:47:23PM +0100, Thomas Keller wrote:
> 
> Hi all!
> 
> I appreciate that people take care about older releases and open
> branches for them to backport fixes, but I think two things are easily
> forgotten and should be considered by anybody touching these:
> 
> 1) If a new branch is created off trunk for a patch release and you make
> your first commit, its your responsibility to change the version number
> to "0.<minor>.<patch + 1>dev" for mtn < 1.0. If we follow the new
> proposed version numbering scheme, this would mean
> <major>.<minor>.<patch>.90 for new patch versions, which eventually gets
> <major>.<minor>.<patch + 1>, but I'm open for other - less ugly -
> suggestions here.

Do we run the risk of several patch branches being extant simultaneously 
and ending up with the same 0.minor.patch+1 number?  Presumably this 
would have to be changed when finally merging the patch.

> 
> 2) Likewise when the first change is made, a corresponding NEWS entry
> should be written, so we don't start to digg though the commit log of
> the particular branch for a patch release, but have something to build upon.
> 
> 3) Usually one would fix a bug in a release branch and merge it into
> trunk, but this merge could bring over unwanted changes (like changes in
> NEWS, configure.ac and maybe others), so the best is probably to use
> pluck as most of you already did.
> 
> 
> Now to the question which branches we really want to take care of.
> 
> Since 0.48 is quite around I think it makes sense to support this a
> little longer - at least until Debian moves to a newer version - and
> backport important stuff as needed.

That'll be a long time, sonce 0.48 is currentl;y Debian testing, and 
will be around as stable for a very long time.  Unless we can get 1.0 
into testing before the release.  Which I consider unlikely.

> Richard recently added the updated French translation to 0.48 (probably
> because the original author created a patch against this version) and
> this was already kind of a corner case, because I think we should really
> try to keep calm in this area and avoid lots of work backporting
> non-crucial things to older branches.
> The translation update of course did not break anything for us, but I
> don't know for example if Debian policies allow i18n updates at all in
> the lifetime of a package and if this work is actually seen for 0.48
> users. (I do think its seen otherwise the original author wouldn't have
> send the patch probably, but I don't know the rules enough).
> 
> Other versions beside 0.48 are currently not quite on my agenda beside
> the most recent version / branch 0.99, so again, unless people start
> screaming very loud at us we should try and keep the work and ourselves
> calm.

I think 0.40 is in Debian stable right now, but that should be gone in a 
few months.(or at least become oldstable).

> 
> Questions / comments / clarifications? If you're ok with the things
> written above, I could move them into the wiki and / or document them in
> notes/release-checklist.txt.
> 
> Thomas.
> 
> -- 
> GPG-Key 0x160D1092 | address@hidden | http://thomaskeller.biz
> Please note that according to the EU law on data retention, information
> on every electronic information exchange might be retained for a period
> of six months or longer: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/?lang=en
> 
> 



> _______________________________________________
> Monotone-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel