CVS access policy, branching/tagging, code review, etc.
Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:35:41 -0500
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> The question I'd like to see answered is what should go into which
> branches. I've been putting fixes into XORG-CURRENT, since that's
> where I was told to commit when I got access, but I don't know who
> or how it's decided which of those will get moved over to the
> XORG-RELEASE-1 tree or when. Also as Keith mentioned, should we
> consider either XORG-CURRENT or XORG-RELEASE-1 in any sort of
> bug-fixes only or major-bug-fixes only mode?
> The fixes I've been committing could hardly be considered major,
> mostly build fixes for Solaris x86 builds using the Sun 8.0 compilers,
> and some old fixes that I had submitted to the old X.org fixes
> but which never got committed or only got committed to the never-released
> X11R6.6.1 branch. (Does anyone still have a copy of that tree to
> see if anything else there should be committed?)
Major work like Cygwin, Xevie, Xprint should be done on a branch.
To use Keith's works, small changes that are obvious to "skilled
practitioners" may be committed directly to -CURRENT. So far your
commits to -CURRENT look okay to me.
-RELEASE-1 isn't my branch, so I'm not going to make rules about it.
For now -CURRENT should be considered to be the head of the tree. For
people who weren't around when the tree was set up, the general model I
have in mind is that active work occurs on -CURRENT. When agreed upon,
-CURRENT is merged to -STABLE. (In *BSD this is called MFC or Merge From
Current). I had in mind that releases would be cut from -STABLE by
merging to the HEAD and tagging the release there.