Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-02-01 11:29: > On 02/01/2012 10:40 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> On the "drop maint" line of discussion, I don't think that's a wise >> move. If you drop maint - and release directly from branch-1.11 - >> you'd "leak" e.g. the version change in configure.ac into master the >> next time you merge branch-1.11 into master, >> > Nope: I would just get a one-line merge conflict, very easy to solve > (just keep the version from master, and you're done -- difficult to > mess this up). Much better than the present situation IMHO.
Well, the present situation is just confusing, so I don't think you should compare with that. Compare with the ideal situation of a maint very similar to the release branch instead, and never allowing them to diverge. >> and you don't want >> that. So, instead you'd create a release branch off of branch-1.11 >> and do the version change there, but then you'd want to base the >> next release off of the old release. And by then you are back to >> square one with the future branch-1.11 being the equivalent of the >> current maint. >> > See above. > >> I think the rule should be that maint should be kept *very* close >> to branch-1.11 (only differing by release related commits such as the >> above example with the version in configure.ac). This isn't true >> today (e.g. msvc is merged into branch-1.11). >> > Keeping maint and branch-1.11 very close was the plan initially, but we > (and I think it was you who pressed for this ;-) decided that the MSVC > stuff was better to be published in the 1.11.x line (although disabled > by default), rather than left as "vaporware" in master only. I still > think that was a good decision, all in all. Yes, I know I'm not innocent. But you are not either, you were the one pressing for hiding the warning making the msvc branch unsuitable for maint :-) In hindsight, it should probably have been done differently, that's all. But I still don't know how, given that msvc had already been merged into master in it's master incantation when the divergence originated (at least I think it had). Cheers, Peter
