Suggestions for procedure going forward

[Faré]

OK, so here is a concrete proposal for branch names:
* "master" for the latest uncontroversial developments, which will become 3.2
* various topic branches to hold controversial or incomplete changes
* "release" for the latest release, which will remain 3.1 then become 3.2
* "3.1" for work continued work on ASDF 3.1 after master becomes 3.2
* "release-3.1" for stable releases of ASDF 3.1 after release becomes 3.2

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Evolution competitively selects stable cooperative patterns.


On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Kambiz Darabi <darabi at m-creations.com> wrote:
> On 2015-11-17 18:11 CET, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> So I'd like to split ASDF development into stable and testing or
>> something like that.
>>
>> Does anyone have experience doing that?  If so, please post suggestions
>> for process to ASDF-devel.
>
> If we have to support version 3.x and 4.y of a code base, then we create
> a 'release-3' branch at feature freeze time and keep it after release,
> so 3.1, 3.2 etc. are created from the tip of 'release-3' where we
> cherry-pick (mostly bugfix) changes from master.
>
> In the meantime, development of version 4 continues in master and when
> we freeze the features for that version, we create a 'release-4' branch
> which is then curated until 4.1 can be released.
>
> This is a quite transparent model which most developers understand
> immediately.
>
> HTH
>
>
> Kambiz
>