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

[Kaleb S. KEITHLEY]

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.

--

Kaleb