[pulseaudio-discuss] [PACKAGERS] Patches for 0.9.15

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Colin Guthrie<gmane at colin.guthr.ie> wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and Felipe Contreras at 09/06/09 21:27 did gyre and gimble:
>>
>> See it from the point of view of someone who doesn't know what's the
>> latest version of PA (newbie, or someone who hasn't followed the
>> project in a while); it's much easier to just checkout "stable".
>
> I don't think a single "stable" branch is appropriate. For one, it's not
> really making the best use of git here. To keep a stable branch, we would
> essentially have to recreate it when a new release is done, causing people
> to need forced updates, no fast forwarding etc. You could rebase the branch
> at release time I guess but that may mean making commits out of order and
> having to resolve merge conflicts again (e.g. if you had to tweak a
> cherry-pick to the stable branch). This is dangerous as could result in the
> code being slightly different. So no a single "stable" branch is not, IMO, a
> good idea.

What do you propose instead? Have a "$version-stable" branch for each
and every release? That doesn't scale, the repository will be polluted
with branches that nobody use any more.

And it is a good use of git, remember that a branch is just a pointer,
and the pointer can jump from one commit to a complete unrelated one,
there's nothing wrong with that.

I thought of another use-case, I do have a "stable" branch in most of
the projects I follow, so when 0.9.16 is released I would have to do:
git reset --hard origin/0.9.16-stable

It would be much easier to do:
git reset --hard origin/stable

> Pulse isn't really something that is entirely newbie friendly anyway - it's
> got to be integrated fairly deeply at the distro level for it to work nicely
> and that will likely be most new users route to playing with pulse.
>
> If you're at the stage of checking out the source code from git, you're way
> beyond newbie status and can spend the extra 10 seconds looking at the
> various branches and deciding for yourself what one to work with.

Yes, looking for the latest released version, and finding the
corresponding -stable branch might take a couple of seconds so it's
not a big deal, but still, "stable" would be clearer and faster.

I still haven't heard an advantage of "$version-stable" over "stable".

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras