From: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>
To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [DEV] New git workflow
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:27:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874ntilxh9.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 4F69063F.40600@gmx.de
Simon Thum <simon.thum@gmx.de> writes:
> as discussion started anyway, I'd like to mention that I see some
> problem with maint, that is, it only ever pertains to the latest
> release. It's hard to hotfix and release old versions in the proposed
> model.
IMHO, that was never the objective.
> Moreover, maint is bound quite tightly to master. maint seems like a
> somewhat safer master to me - I fail to see a big difference between
> them.
That's what it was designed to be, a way for people with (and more so
without) git access to access the latest bugfixes without the vagaries
of evolving new features.
> One may want to count that as a bonus; I don't. Part of the
> reason is that sometimes releases have commits that simply don't
> belong into master, like specific version increments.
>
> Many projects use the IMO more sane model of release branches (or
> maintenance branches, if you prefer) for major releases. Minor ones
> are tagged on those branches, and back-porting critical fixes is much
> cleaner: Fixes and development go to master, fixes which should be
> back-ported are cherry-picked onto the release branches. When desired,
> a new release is tagged. Releases only come from release branches, of
> course.
Sorry, but cherry-picking into multiple release branches would simply
not be a sane development model for a small project like orgmode.
> I guess a decision should mostly be based on how significant the use
> case "back-port fix" is to org-mode. The "safer master" role of maint
> could of course be retained in a stable branch which points to
> something like master@{1 month ago}.
Any point in the past is no safer than today's master. The stability
that maint should provide to users is with regards to the feature set,
i.e. no gratuitous changes between releases.
Regards,
Achim.
--
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf Q+, Q and microQ:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-20 22:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-20 0:51 [DEV] New git workflow Bastien
2012-03-20 7:03 ` Achim Gratz
2012-03-20 7:24 ` Achim Gratz
2012-03-20 10:40 ` Bastien
2012-03-20 19:20 ` Achim Gratz
2012-03-21 0:02 ` Bastien
2012-03-21 0:23 ` Bastien
2012-03-20 10:47 ` Bastien
2012-03-20 22:35 ` Simon Thum
2012-03-20 22:27 ` Achim Gratz [this message]
2012-03-21 8:46 ` Simon Thum
2012-03-21 9:01 ` Achim Gratz
2012-03-21 22:38 ` Simon Thum
2012-03-24 11:05 ` Daniel Dehennin
2012-03-24 20:08 ` Simon Thum
2012-03-24 19:29 ` Nick Dokos
2012-04-01 9:26 ` Simon Thum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=874ntilxh9.fsf@Rainer.invalid \
--to=stromeko@nexgo.de \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).