CVS access policy, branching/tagging, code review, etc.
Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:58:17 -0500
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 13:29, Keith Packard wrote:
> Hmm. I'd rather see the release done on HEAD; otherwise, there's work to
> be done to make HEAD current after the release, which seems error prone.
The usual procedure is to have a code freeze date for the release and
then branch for that release. Continuing development occurs on HEAD,
release bug fixes occur on the branch. When/if release bug fixes are
merged back to HEAD is a working policy decision.
Thus I agree with Egbert, releases should be branched, HEAD is never a
John Dennis <email@example.com>