From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Achim Gratz Subject: Re: [DEV] New git workflow Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:27:14 +0100 Message-ID: <874ntilxh9.fsf@Rainer.invalid> References: <87mx7cf613.fsf@altern.org> <4F69063F.40600@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58058) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SA7Wk-000664-Ur for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:27:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SA7Wi-0006MH-Qv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:27:38 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:40443) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SA7Wi-0006MB-Jv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:27:36 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SA7We-000631-OX for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:27:32 +0100 Received: from pd9eb2338.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.235.35.56]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:27:32 +0100 Received: from Stromeko by pd9eb2338.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:27:32 +0100 List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Simon Thum 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