apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: No v1.6.x branch?
Date Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:38:35 GMT
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Graham Leggett <minfrin@sharp.fm> wrote:

> On 21 Apr 2014, at 3:16 PM, Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com> wrote:
> r1588878, and soon if practical, given we've just released v1.5.1.
> What does that commit have to do with having just released 1.5.1?
> The commit is an addition to the API, and as such as not eligible for
> backport to the v1.5.x branch as per our versioning rules. Having just
> released v1.5.x people may not be keen on v1.6 so soon after, or maybe they
> are. Either way no way to tell, seeing v1.6.x doesn't exist.

1.5.1 wasn't the first release in the 1.5.x series.

> New features seem rather easy to follow using trunk/CHANGES and-or a diff
> of the include directories.  For finer detail, it is much easier for a
> person who cares to record revision numbers of desired feature backports in
> trunk/STATUS than for everyone to have to touch an additional branch for
> bug fixes, and then double check before we actually release it since we've
> had issues with that in the past.
> The shortcut you're describing is technical debt. Instead of the person
> who wants the fix and/or feature committed doing the work of committing it
> to various branches that work falls to others who are probably not in a
> position to make the backport as carefully or test it as thoroughly. This
> introduces stability problems we just don't want.

Let's bring this down to earth.  Do you to promote a 1.6.x branch/release
soon-ish (e.g., within a month or so) and discuss what new features various
developers are interested in promoting for 1.6.x, or do you just want to
have the branch pick up changes steadily until 1.6.x gradually acquires
different constituencies that want/need a feature relase?

Born in Roswell... married an alien...

View raw message