lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal about Version API "relaxation"
Date Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:56:54 GMT
A clarification - stable/unstable are not really related to the
'stability' of the branch, right? I mean both trunk and branch will be
stable in the sense that tests pass and I can safely use either of
them. We're not going to start checking in code which is in the middle
of dev, does not compile, tests fail etc. Right? Or did I
missunderstood the intention?

Shai

On Sunday, April 25, 2010, Michael McCandless <lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> OK, so forget that suggestion :)
>
> It sounds like the best way to manage the branches is trunk = unstable
> (X.0 major release), and long lived branch for ongoing stable dev
> (X.Y.0 minor releases), and possible bug fix branches off of that
> (X.Y.Z), on demand if needed.
>
> But the intention here is not to abandon the stable branch as soon as
> it's cut.  I expect many changes/devs will work mostly on the stable
> branch since that branch does [minor] releases much more often than
> the unstable branch.
>
> Changes that go into stable need to be merged to unstable, maybe
> periodically sweeped or maybe merged up by the original committer or
> likely some combination (like flex).
>
> (And, yes we'll still use other branches for big new features that are
> in active development).
>
> Mike
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Earwin Burrfoot <earwin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And, it's not the committer's job to port each little commit to stable
>>> over to the unstable branch.  Instead, we periodically re-sync stable
>>> --> unstable, like we did with the long-lived flex branch.
>>>
>>> So, then, little would change on how stable is developed, today.  And
>>> stable would still be the primary source line for development.
>>
>> -1
>>
>> And now there's no place I can go for latest-and-greatest. Some
>> features in stable, other features in unstable - do I have to merge
>> locally if I need all of them?
>> If we have some new flex-calibre developments, they warrant their own
>> branch, as they are totally unusable whilst in the works.
>>
>> The shining point of unstable is not that you can shove some flexy
>> stuff there. It's that you can tweak APIs without regard to backwards
>> compat, and have generally cleaner codebase.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (earwin@gmail.com)
>> Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423
>> ICQ: 104465785
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message