CVS access policy, branching/tagging, code review, etc.

[Mike A. Harris]

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, John Dennis 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
>release vehicle. 

I also agree with Egbert.  HEAD should always consist of the 
latest development efforts.  When a particular release is nearing 
release, or already released, it should be branched off of the 
trunk as a stable branch.  Development of the next release should 
then continue to proceed on the HEAD of the trunk.  This is how 
almost all projects use CVS, and it makes the most amount of 
sense.


-- 
Mike A. Harris     ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat