Rejiggering the branches

[Raymond Toy]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 8:20 AM Eric Timmons <etimmons at mit.edu> wrote:

> Attila Lendvai <attila.lendvai at gmail.com> writes:
> > what i would do:
> >
> >    - one branch that holds the bleeding edge. i'd call it main, just to
> go
> >    with the flow.
> >    - branches for ASDF versions (down to the desired resolution, probably
> >    major.minor), so that you can easily cherry pick or backport fixes
> into
> >    them. a new version-branch is forked off of main whenever a release
> happens.
> >    - optionally a stable *tag* as an indirection to the latest release.
> it
> >    communicates which specific git revision is it that the maintainer
> >    considers the stable state at any moment in time. it comes handy e.g.
> in CI
> >    scripts that want to check out the latest ASDF release, etc...
> >
>
> I like this!
>
> IMO a big win of having the major and minor number in the branch name is
> that it's a better experience for users. If it's a single `maintenance`
> branch then a git pull may wind up changing their version completely. If
> they have any local changes as well, things might get a bit hairy when
> `maintenance` changes minor versions as that wouldn't be a fast-forward
> update.
>
> Additionally having a version independent `stable` identifier (tag or
> branch) is nice for the use cases described here.
>

For me, a "stable" tag/branch that keeps changing the contents isn't
"stable".

My 2 cents.  I'm not an asdf dev, and only grab asdf when releases are done
(or need to test some new things being introduced.)

>
> -Eric
>
>

-- 
Ray
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20210713/cdc6eb54/attachment.html>