Re: [HACKERS] CVS Branch Tagging...

> I don't agree...the problem is that our times between releases
> tends to be...erratic. It was supposed to be 3+1mos, and is turning into,
> what, 5+1?
>
> Not all changes to the source tree require a dump/reload to take
> effect...we have 4 patches in the ftp site right now, to v6.3.2, with the
> first dated Apr21st, and the last dated Jul30th. With a STABLE vs CURRENT
> branch, those patches could have been applied to the STABLE branch, and a
> quick v6.3.x release could have been regress tested and released. That in
> itself would have saved some of the problems where ppl had downloaded the
> 'newest release' but had problems because they didn't grab the patches to
> go along with it.
>
> The problem right now is we look at it as being one stream...right
> now, the only thing that should be left for v6.4 is bug fixes, and there
> should be no reason to hold up continued development while we wait for
> each possible bug report to flow in.
>
> With two branches, there should be no reason why a patch that
> Vadim comes up with to fix a "rarely hit, but often disastrous" bug in
> indexes can't be applied and tested in both tree. Then a quick v6.4.1 can
> be released that those not wishing to run "latest and greatest" can run
> without having to lose out on that major fix...
>
> The idea is that with very little work on anyone's part, we can
> easily provide a more stable foundation for those starting out and wishing
> to use it in a production environment. Right now, we have a v6.3.2 from
> April 19th, with four patches that can be applied...but how many ppl would
> actually apply those patches in a production environment? Most ppl would
> download and upgrade to v6.3.3 which had those patches applied...
>
> I don't know...its something we just did with INN, cause we still
> had some bugs to work out on 2.2, but some of the developers who don't
> work on the areas involved are getting restless to get some work
> done...gives them a chance to move forward without affecting the RELEASE
> scheduale...

We have this discussion just before every release. The farther away the
memory of the 1.* release mess, the less likely Marc is to agree.

It will not work. It will not provide the stable released we need.
But, if you want to Linux it, go ahead.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026