From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Achim Gratz Subject: Re: Should maint branch be deprecated? Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:12:25 +0100 Message-ID: <87pqc8dw2u.fsf@Rainer.invalid> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52451) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S9lkn-0002VL-Nk for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:12:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S9lkl-0003fm-El for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:12:41 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:59070) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S9lkl-0003fY-84 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:12:39 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S9lki-00026N-6E for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:12:36 +0100 Received: from pd9eb2b87.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.235.43.135]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:12:36 +0100 Received: from Stromeko by pd9eb2b87.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:12:36 +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 Martyn Jago writes: > As an infrequent committer to org-mode, I wonder if the maint branch is > more pain than gain. > > I've read through the mails arguing for its conception, and the benefits > just don't appear to be resultant. 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. > Add to that - infrequent committer's who commit via the list generally > know nothing about the maintenance branch (including me), which just > leads to more confusion. > > I follow the commits to master, and the work to core developers due to > the maint branch is clearly not insignificant? It is actually quite easy: If it's a bugfix for something broken in a release version, commit to maint and merge maint back into master. If implementing a new feature or fixing something not yet released, commit to master. > 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). The other development model is to develop new stuff in feature branches and those tend not to get tested too well before going mainline. 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. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Wavetables for the Terratec KOMPLEXER: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#KomplexerWaves