leif at ambient.2y.net
Thu Jan 23 01:20:04 CET 2003
I vote for option 2. Seems like (as taaz said) CVS HEAD
should be out there for folks who are willing to take on the
bleeding edge. If people want a stable branch they should
get a release tarball.
I agree that it's important to have our developers working
on fixes in the release branch. But isn't it enough to
remind everyone to use "cvs update/checkout -r
BRANCH-RELEASE-0_6_0" (or whatever stable branch we've got
Then, as I understand it, we'd have a stable branch for
0.6.0 (which came from the branch for 0.5.x), HEAD would be
the unstable/development series (0.7.0.1) and some time
later we make a 0.8.0 branch from
0.7.0 and update HEAD to 0.9.0, etc ...
Please take with as many grains of salt as are appropriate,
I'm certainly no CVS expert ! :)
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> 1) branch a 0.6.0 branch off of the current 0.5.2 one.
> after 0.6.0 is out, merge back to HEAD.
> HEAD becomes the "stable" series, only bug fixes allowed
> at some point in the future (but not right now) a 0.7 branch gets
> made in which people can mess up again :)
> 2) branch 0.6.0 off 0.5.2
> when 0.6.0 is out, update HEAD to 0.7.0.1 and make that the dev series
> right away
> branch a 0.6.x branch off of 0.6.0
> track bug fixes in this branch
Leif Morgan Johnson . http://ambient.2y.net/leif/
IAESTE trainee . http://www.iaeste.org/
Salomon Automation . http://www.salomon.at/
More information about the gstreamer-devel