You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by "Armin.Le.Grand@me.com" <Ar...@me.com> on 2015/06/02 15:23:31 UTC
Re: [Discuss] Review and improve graphics memory handling
Hi Andrea,
AFAIU AOO410 branch goes on for 411, 412, 413... versions. One branch
for next mid-number change, e.g. AOO420 would need a new one. For AOO411
we have no extra branch AFAIK, only a revision number in AOO410 branch.
I would keep that schema - the goal of micro releases is minor
changes/stability, no need for a new branch from my POV, but this are
just my 2 ct...
Sincerely,
alg
On 31.05.2015 17:38, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 29/05/2015 Armin.Le.Grand wrote:
>> will check if it's in AOO410 branch...
>
> Actually, I thought we had consensus on creating a AOO412 branch for
> OpenOffice 4.1.2. I see you have now committed the fix to AOO410.
>
> Of course, this is not really important, it is far more important that
> the release comes some steps closer, thanks Armin for the fix!
>
> But I recommend to settle the branch discussion on this list so that
> we know whether to reuse (once again) AOO410 as we did for OpenOffice
> 4.1.1 or to have a dedicated branch for OpenOffice 4.1.2.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
RE: [Discuss] Review and improve graphics memory handling
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 8, 2015 8:46 AM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>
wrote:
>
> I've never understood this business of having multiple releases as
progressions on the same code branch.
>
> It seems far more confusing than having a branch or tag that corresponds
to the release identifier.
Actually before 4.1.1, we did use "tags" if memory serves. I just assumed
we could do this again for 4.1.2 unless there was some reason not to.
I also find the revision cut used for 4.1.1 confusing. In reality, we could
do a tag for it I think.
It also helps if there is a need for a patch release at a particular
branch.
>
> It also makes check-out of a specific release branch easier. And it is
easy to confirm the archive of the released source against its SVN.
>
> Although there is a lot of code involved, I thought SVN used a Copy on
Write strategy so copying code into a branch does not create actual copies
but links, with copies made only when a difference is introduced at either
end of the link. Am I mistaken?
>
> I don't have much skin in this game. It just strikes me that there is a
high risk of confusion and possible error this way. Even if a 412 is built
from a copy of 411, rather than the trunk, with changes then cherry-picked
into it, it seems easier to inspect and to understand.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pescetti@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 18:57
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Review and improve graphics memory handling
>
> On 02/06/2015 Armin.Le.Grand@me.com wrote:
> > AFAIU AOO410 branch goes on for 411, 412, 413... versions. One branch
> > for next mid-number change, e.g. AOO420 would need a new one. For AOO411
> > we have no extra branch AFAIK, only a revision number in AOO410 branch.
> > I would keep that schema - the goal of micro releases is minor
> > changes/stability, no need for a new branch
>
> I'm OK with this. I will commit changes to the existing AOO410 branch
> instead of creating AOO412 then.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
RE: [Discuss] Review and improve graphics memory handling
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I've never understood this business of having multiple releases as progressions on the same code branch.
It seems far more confusing than having a branch or tag that corresponds to the release identifier. It also helps if there is a need for a patch release at a particular branch.
It also makes check-out of a specific release branch easier. And it is easy to confirm the archive of the released source against its SVN.
Although there is a lot of code involved, I thought SVN used a Copy on Write strategy so copying code into a branch does not create actual copies but links, with copies made only when a difference is introduced at either end of the link. Am I mistaken?
I don't have much skin in this game. It just strikes me that there is a high risk of confusion and possible error this way. Even if a 412 is built from a copy of 411, rather than the trunk, with changes then cherry-picked into it, it seems easier to inspect and to understand.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pescetti@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2015 18:57
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] Review and improve graphics memory handling
On 02/06/2015 Armin.Le.Grand@me.com wrote:
> AFAIU AOO410 branch goes on for 411, 412, 413... versions. One branch
> for next mid-number change, e.g. AOO420 would need a new one. For AOO411
> we have no extra branch AFAIK, only a revision number in AOO410 branch.
> I would keep that schema - the goal of micro releases is minor
> changes/stability, no need for a new branch
I'm OK with this. I will commit changes to the existing AOO410 branch
instead of creating AOO412 then.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [Discuss] Review and improve graphics memory handling
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 02/06/2015 Armin.Le.Grand@me.com wrote:
> AFAIU AOO410 branch goes on for 411, 412, 413... versions. One branch
> for next mid-number change, e.g. AOO420 would need a new one. For AOO411
> we have no extra branch AFAIK, only a revision number in AOO410 branch.
> I would keep that schema - the goal of micro releases is minor
> changes/stability, no need for a new branch
I'm OK with this. I will commit changes to the existing AOO410 branch
instead of creating AOO412 then.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org