Re: cherrypicking our way to 2.16
Graham Percival <graham <at> percival-music.ca>
2012-06-30 22:08:36 GMT
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:41:49PM +0200, mike <at> mikesolomon.org wrote:
> Once the most recent critical issues are squashed, are people up
> for forking off a stable branch from 2.15? Administratively we'd
> go into cherrypick mode like we did for 2.13 where we institute
> a moratorium on pushing to the stable branch and have a
> cherrypick Czar (like Carl was a year-ish ago) port critical
> bugfixes to this branch.
We never did that for 2.13. You're thinking of 2.14, a few months
I'm against this for a few reasons:
- we'd need a volunteer to handle this cherry-picking (but of
course your email may prompt somebody to offer)
- we still don't have anybody else who has made a release, and I'm
already having trouble running GOP (let alone GLISS).
- after a potential branch, git master is not going to get regular
regression tests (other than Patchy) -- nobody is going to be
making releases from it.
I still think that the extra burden should be on people wanting to
be unstable, not on people wanting to be stable. That is, if
somebody knows that they're doing big hacking (spacing changes,
rewriting the parser, etc), then they should stick that on a
separate branch. One of the big "selling points" of git is that
it makes branching and merging easier.
That said, it would be interesting if somebody analyzed all
Critical issues from Feb 2012 onwards (after we started Patchy).
How many issues were related to code before 2012? How many issues