Re: [g-a-devel]questions about final tarballs due monday

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

Hey Malcolm:

No problem; this is just "what we decided to do", we may well have
gotten it wrong.  I guess I should re-read the GEP to see if there's a
reason for branching sooner that outweighs the disadvantages of
maintaining two active branches at once.

- Bill

On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 12:12, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> Hey Bill,
> 
> On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 20:26, Bill Haneman wrote:
> > With respect to branching, the approach we have been taking with
> > accessibility stuff has been 'just in time', i.e. we branch immediately
> > before doing anything that's incompatible with the current stable
> > release set.  So we'd create a 2.4. branch before adding features.  This
> > keeps us from having to merge bugfixes in the 2.4.X line until as late
> > as possible. 
> > 
> > GOK exports no libraries (outside its own package) and therefore
> > bincompat is not an issue, except possibly for the data formats it reads
> > (if users have created custom input files, etc.).
> > 
> > I think these same points apply to gnopernicus; we have advised that
> > these projects do not branch until post 2.4.1 at least, since we want to
> > remain in bugfix mode for awhile.
> 
> Sorry, I wasn't meaning to try and teach anybody how to suck eggs. :-)
> 
> It sounds like the involved people have thought this all through. I need
> to learn to keep my foot out of my mouth.
> 
> Cheers,
> Malcolm
> 
>