Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of fdmanana@gmail.com designates
 209.85.218.221 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
         :subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=FJouTDLJwgYItOW0qOm0Bp+60VAYfeSEfxiXviF/wiYy09uD9Y7GXGJaHKfDTWgEPf
         geXe2EOZhI8VqePjSc67J+QS975Xvva0RHCcnkrBpGG7Di+/gAugj5ae2Wth4TfCN3vr
         wY/w5VZYBnD0NlX0/GENV8RUU3TTXISUa0Crs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: fdmanana@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <F2325EAE-A6F3-4EA4-831A-752CCF8149E5@apache.org>
References: <F2325EAE-A6F3-4EA4-831A-752CCF8149E5@apache.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:38:07 +0100
Message-ID: <g2wcadf1c691004040538j27f67cc5lba1ccdaabeeb58f4@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 1.0 Code Management
From: Filipe David Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015173fe53c0197090483687c37

--0015173fe53c0197090483687c37
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi,

I'll vote for basing 1.0.0 on the 0.11.x branch.
Otherwise, create a new branch for post 1.0.0 features and base 1.0.0 on
trunk?

cheers

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi dev@,
>
> The next bigger thing up is our 1.0.0 release (yay!) and I'd like to get
> clarification on how we are going to use SVN for this. So far, we
> cut new releases from trunk, put them in a branch and kept that
> up with bug fixes.
>
> This time 0.11.x is meant to be the feature freeze for 1.0.0. Does that
> mean we are going to use the 0.11.x branch as the basis for 1.0.0 or
> do we want to keep using trunk?
>
> I'd be fine with whatever we decide here, but I do want to get consensus.
>
> A conservative view would mandate that we use the 0.11.x branch to add
> bug fixes until it is shaped into a form that we want to call 1.0.0 and
> then
> branch that into the 1.0.x branch that we keep for maintenance.
>
> This would allow us to keep using trunk for new features as usual. This
> also means, we have to maintain two to three branches (0.11.x, trunk and
> eventually 1.0.x). This is a lot of bookkeeping.
>
> One could argue that we should focus on 1.0.0 anyway and shouldn't add
> new features to trunk until we're done, but I don't want to prescribe for
> anyone what code to write when (that said, we can easily create another
> branch for new features that we can merge back into trunk after 1.0.0 or
> each
> developer can maintain a (semi-)-private git(hub) branch until after 1.0.0)
>
> If we keep using trunk for 1.0.0 we should revisit if any patches that
> landed
> in trunk after we branched 0.11.x are in fact meant for 1.0.0. I'm happy to
> produce a list if there are any concerns. If there no concerns I'm happy to
> ignore this point :)
>
> I think the easiest way forward (as in easiest for us developers) is to
> use trunk as the basis for 1.0 and agree to put new features elsewhere
> until we branch 1.0.x.
>
> But I'm happy to use 0.11.x as the basis and help managing all the
> merging that needs being done, if we decide to do that.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
> KISS
>
>
>


-- 
Filipe David Manana,
fdmanana@gmail.com

"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."

--0015173fe53c0197090483687c37--