Re: fast-forward only policy

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 23:10 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> To be clear on what I'm proposing: there's no need to add 'project' to
> branch names when you already know the project ('1-2' is fine). But
> going into the next level, there's no need to have '1-2', '1-4' and
> '1-0', 'stable' and 'master' are more than enough.

And what if I'm still actively developing and making
releases for the 2.24 series and the 2.26 series?

What if I backport fixes to the old stable branch?
Now I'm likely to have merge conflicts when I try
to copy master over stable.

Note that it is not at all uncommon to branch early.
That is, a maintainer wants to get hacking on 2.27
stuff before we've release 2.26.0, so he makes the
gnome-2-26 branch, announces it to the appropriate
people, and gets hacking on master.

I just don't think a single stable branch accurately
reflects history, and it can cause various logistical
problems.  As it is, I can easily see the history of
whatever ought to be in Gnome 2.26, including stuff
that's been committed but not yet tagged in a release.

--
Shaun