Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mayongl@gmail.com designates
 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4F9D6238.8020907@apache.org>
References: 
 <CAP-ksoiC9fti6TQsymksTcveS+L8VrZsujbdkCArBC+5gNuWfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F9C4DE6.70109@apache.org>
	<CAP-ksoiR9GoUA4q6B9ipQFGQp9DFNukKKsmLmVMXe0mpcP9oTA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F9D6238.8020907@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 13:54:44 +0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAPzejYgp_x=gdOGZUpb0_JYa7N9YWo5YfUw9=gYZ4boc2O=uGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: After AOO 3.4?
From: Yong Lin Ma <mayongl@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Agree with having a maintenance branch for traslation and critical bug fix.

It is time to unlock the code base to allow contributors to submit
improvments for later release.


On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org> wro=
te:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> 1) We want to have a maintenance branch that can be used to deliver
>> quick-turnaround releases. ...
>>
>> 2) We also want feature release, like 3.5, 3.6, etc. =A0Almost anything
>> can go into them. =A0...
>>
>> 3) Then we have major updates, like 4.0. =A0These are similar to #2,
>> only more substantial.
>> Was there a similar distinction made in OOo?
>
>
> Yes, quite similar. For sure here we would need a 3.4.x branch for
> incremental updates (bugfixes only) and one for 4.0 (with a major focus o=
n
> specific new features, say, user interface and usability).
>
> The need for other releases like 3.5, 3.6... will depend on how long it
> takes to reach 4.0. If I recall correctly, OpenOffice.org used to maintai=
n
> one stable branch (bugfixes only, explicitly backported from trunk) and o=
ne
> main development trunk.
>
> Regards,
> =A0Andrea.