Suggestions for procedure going forward

[Faré]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
> On 11/18/15 Nov 18 -3:32 PM, Faré wrote:
>> 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
>
> This sounds mostly ok.  I kind of prefer "stable" to "3.1" for continued
> work on the 3.1 series.
>
> Rationale: "stable" can't be confused with one of our release tags, the
> way a numerical branch name could be.
>
> I hadn't thought about there being continued stable releases after we
> move release to 3.2.  Hmmmmm.....
>
Yeah, there's an awkward merge or rebase happening when "stable" jumps
from 3.1 to 3.2, whereas no such jump happens if old branches have
numbered names and are forked off a master that keeps going forward.

> One more open question:
>
> If we move master to be the 3.2 series, then how do we number the
> interim versions?  Previously, 3.1.x.y has been a release candidate for
> 3.1.x+1, which has been only mildly awkward.  But if we start version
> numbering candidates for the next release this way, then testing with
> :version really won't work, and there's some danger of version numbering
> collisions between stable and testing.
>
> We could have m.n.0.[1-] be release candidates for m.n, and just always
> have the final release be m.n.1, which would keep the :VERSION tests
> working.
>
That's more or less what we ended doing with 3.1.

PS: I removed some of the ancient ASDF 2 compatibility and code to
upgrade from it in a fine-grained way — now all implementations "punt"
when upgrading from asdf 2, i.e. rename away the old asdf package
without trying to reuse its symbols, variables, functions.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
It's possible to program a computer in English. It's also possible to make an
airplane controlled by reins and spurs.  — John McCarthy