Re: Should maint branch be deprecated?

[Bastien <bzg@altern.org>]

Hi Achim,

Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:

> It seemed to work well until Bastien made a mistake because the release
> script wasn't properly adapted and digged the hole deeper while trying
> to fix it (too) quickly.  Maint is good again, master still needs a few
> more touches.

This should be all right now -- thanks again!

>> If the gain is greater than the pain then somebody needs to clue me up.
>
> The argument is the same as before: master contains changes that
> introduce new features and may break compatibility while maint should
> only contain bugfixes.  This is important because org also needs to
> respect Emacs' release schedule (and synchronize with the bzr repo they
> use), which generally means that they will accept bugfixes, but no new
> features during certain times (like right now).  

See my email about the new git workflow: I want to have a branch
dedicated to releases.  I think it will make things way more readable
and manageable.

> The other development
> model is to develop new stuff in feature branches and those tend not to
> get tested too well before going mainline.

We already use dedicated branch for development sometimes -- see the
branch for Max/Carsten new feature.  But you're right in saying that 
I want to keep the majority of development happening in master.

> Ultimately it's Bastiens' call.  If he decides to go back to the single
> branch model, he'll have to do much more tedious manual work to keep org
> in sync with Emacs and when doing bugfix releases.

With the old model, the *only* reason for having maint was the Emacs
sync issue.  Now the reason is to clarify the release process.

Best,

-- 
 Bastien