incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] where to begin the process for Apache CloudStack 4.0.0
Date Thu, 31 May 2012 17:35:43 GMT
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Robert Schweikert <rjschwei@suse.com> wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:35 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote:
>>
>> The master branch hasn't diverged much from the 3.0.x branch at this
>> point.  I can't name any divergence off the top of my head.  I would expect
>> 3.0.x to be more stable, but if there is another reason to go forth with
>> master then I wouldn't stop that for stability reasons.
>>
>>> New features going to master for 4.1.x  (though our focus should really
>>> be on
>>> getting an ASF-acceptable release out) Rename the 3.0.x branch to 4.0.x
>>> to
>>> reflect reality.
>>
>>
>> Renaming the branch will create confusion.  The previous 3.0.x releases
>> have already been done off of it so all the committers (and anyone else that
>> has been looking at the code) are expecting this to be the 3.0.x release
>> set.  We could plausibly cut a 4.0.0 and future 4.0.x releases off the 3.0.x
>> branch.  That is a little odd but (IMO) less confusing than renaming the
>> branch out from under people.
>>
>> We could also take a 4.0.x branch off 3.0.x or master.   That leaves open
>> the option of a later 3.0.x release on the 3.0.x branch.  That seems the
>> cleanest approach to me, but it would add some additional branch management
>> overhead if fixes are needed in both 3.0.x and 4.0.x.
>>
>> I might have a slight preference to branching 4.0.x off master.  Then we
>> would establish a pattern that major releases get branched from master, as
>> was done for 3.0.0 and 4.0.0.   This would extend naturally into 5.0.0, etc.
>>  and is easy to explain to new committers.
>
>
> I fully agree with Kevin. Branching 4.0.x off 3.0.x instead of master is
> confusing. We should always branch major release branches off master. This
> does not mean we have to branch 4.0.x of HEAD in master, we can choose an
> earlier commit in master if there is concern that HEAD has some
> instabilities.
>
> My $0.02
> Robert

OK - I can see the logic in that. Soooo - do we need the 3.0.x branch
around anymore? Or perhaps better put - do we intend to use it - even
if we don't purge it? A couple of follow on questions - when should we
branch master to build 4.0.x?

--David

Mime
View raw message