incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yong Lin Ma <mayo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: After AOO 3.4?
Date Wed, 02 May 2012 05:58:00 GMT
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:
> On 04/29/12 23:55, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> I think it all depends on how fast we plan to release 4.0.
>>> It looks likely that merging Symophony may be easy for the
>>> IBM guys, since symphony already updated theit base OOo,
>>> so a release may be fast and the 3.x branch may be short
>>> lived. (I don't know for sure though).
>>>
>
> One thing here that I should've mentioned is that it's rather
> inconvenient that we will not have the symphony history. It
> would've made it much easier to merge features.
>

This can be discussed when the code is available.

>
>>> I think a 3.x branch does make sense in any case but the
>>> rule should be clear: no direct commits to the stable
>>> branch: in general all changes go first to the trunk
>>> and are later merged.
>>
>> I don't think so, I would do it exactly in the other direction. Fixes for
>> critical issues or issues that are assigned for a 3.4.1 should be fixed on
>> the related stable branch and also merged into trunk.
>>
>
> Well, developing an OS is different than developing an Office
> Suite but direct commits to the stable branch in my favorite
> OSS project are prohibited except for specific cases (like if
> the code disappeared from trunk already) for good reasons.
>
> For one thing we are many committers and it's easy to lose track
> if the change was merged to the trunk so it is a good policy to
> ensure consistency in the different versions.  It also keeps
> the SVN merge properties consistent. I am by no means
> a SVN expert but it's likely that using "svn merge", instead of
> "svn commit" in branches is the recommended practice.
>
> Just my $0.02,
>
> Pedro.
>

Mime
View raw message