qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: M3 Freeze
Date Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:48:17 GMT
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 21:41 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> Alan Conway wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 13:50 +0100, Aidan Skinner wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can you remind me the process that was agreed around branching?
> >> What I recall us settling us on was "don't, not unless there's a
> >> (customer money) gun to your head and it can't possibly wait until the
> >> next release".
> > 
> > What I recall us saying is "don't until you really need one". We need
> > one if there is any post-M3 work going on during the freeze. I'm working
> > on clustering code that is well decoupled but still poses a risk of me
> > breaking the C++ broker. There may be others working on post-M3 work as
> > well.
> > 
> > I'd suggest we create an M3 branch and allow post-M3 work on trunk,
> > merging M3 to trunk as we go. The alternative is to use trunk for M3 and
> > create a post-M3-branch but that seems backwards to me. 
> I thought what we said was that in general during a project-wide 
> release, most everyone should be focused stabilizing trunk, and that if 
> someone really really needs to do new feature development during that 
> period, they should create a feature branch.

OK, you've convinced me this might work out better. I suggest a single
after_M3 branch for anyone doing post-M3 work so we don't have multiple
independent feature branches to integrate after the freeze. After the
freeze we can merge after_M3 back to trunk and delete the branch.

Aidan can you create an after_M3 branch from the point we declare the
trunk frozen?


View raw message