Re: Lets get branches names right this time (was: Re: Proposed release process/plans)

[Gediminas Paulauskas <menesis delfi lt>]

Bill Haneman wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 18:38, Chema Celorio wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 12:27, Bill Haneman wrote:
>
> ... 
>
> > > The problem with this scheme is that 2-0-0 is "two branches removed"
> > > from HEAD, which is a significant problem in that important patches
> > > (i.e. for stoppers) have to be committed to three places, and ordinary
> > > bugfixes to two places (i.e. 2-0 and HEAD).  That's a bit burdensome...
> > > which is why I propose to hold new features until 2-0-1 branches, or
> > > else put them on their own branch.
> >
> > Yes, the problem here is that each module is different. It is hard to
> > say to hold new features for all modules, they are in different
> > development cycles and stability (I'm thinking libgnomeprint).
>
>
> OK;
>
> Does anyone have an issue with me using gnome-2-0-0 for
> 2.0.0-release-only code, and continuing to use HEAD for 2.0.1 until it
> enters a "deeper" freeze?  That way at least the branch names for the
> actual release candidates match up.

Branch at latest time possible. If you do not add new features, only 
bugfixes which may go to stable, do not make a branch at all.

Second-level branch (2-0-0) should be used only for short period just 
before the release.

Most of the applications will be dveloped only on HEAD I guess, such 
deep branching is relevant only for very active modules which have 
developers working on future features.

--
Gediminas