[Libreoffice] Work Flow Inquiry

[John LeMoyne Castle]

Hi all, 
I did some work on LibreOffice in late 2010.  Returning now I see that the
timed release schedule has created several branches that correspond to the
various release configurations.  All well and good.  The issue I am
experiencing is related to the various issues with standard functionality in
the Basic IDE: 

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&namedcmd=Basic%20IDE
[Search for bugs with component BASIC ann Summary contains Ctrl OR IDE]

The fixes in this area seem to be done and applied only in 3.4 rc2.  From
looking in other areas of work on rc2, I think I am seeing the same patching
pattern where the rc is ahead of master.  And AFAIK they are all about to
roll back to master.  This leaves me with a bit of a quandary: Do I switch
to 3.4 rc branch because that's where the action is?  Or do I patch my
version of master so I can work there?  Or do I make a request through the
list for patching back to origin/master?  Or should I just wait for the
merge?  I know that I often make things more difficult than they really are,
but I am at a loss as to which is best/recommended way to proceed here and
now.  

*** It seems that just about any patch applied to the current release
candidate branch should also be applied to master, except where the patch is
a workaround in an area that is under active and related development in
master. ***

A drawback is more work for those who push the patches.  I am quite willing
to resubmit existing rc patches in my area(s) of interest but this is ad hoc
and prone to omission and still extra work for those who push patches.  
A benefit is something I read on the list a while back that said "the rc
merge back to master essentially becomes a no-op"(less work at merge).
Another real benefit is that people who are uncertain enough not to patch
the rc can follow along in master, learn and maybe contribute effectively
sooner.

As someone who is still new to open-source development, AFAIK the usual work
flow is to work in dev master unless specifically trying to fix
critical+high importance in the release candidate.  The current divergence
leaves the master behind the rc branch in various ways/areas which feels odd
to me and appears to create extra work for 'somebody', i.e. everyone.  

Please advise 
LeMoyne 

--
View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Work-Flow-Inquiry-tp2999412p2999412.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.