The Tomahawk 1.1.4 branch

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

After Core 1.1.4 is done, should we delete the tomahawk branch that
was created on June 21st, and re-copy it from the 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT
trunk?

I think there have been several changes on the trunk that ought to be
in the next release, and it's probably easier to start over.

Which brings up another point.  IMO, after the branch, development
should continue on the trunk, and changes should be merged to the
branch if they absolutely must be in the release.

To me, the branch exists to protect the release from late breaking
changes, but I've seen posts that promote the opposite, applying fixes
to the branch and merging them back to the trunk.

If you plan to work on the Tomahawk release, which way do you prefer to do it?

-- 
Wendy

Re: The Tomahawk 1.1.4 branch

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

On 8/8/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There may be times when a major branch bug cannot be fixed on trunk,
> > at which point applying the fix solely to the branch would be
> > appropriate.
>
> Agreed, though it should be rare.  At least, I'm having trouble
> thinking up a reason that doesn't involve either a somewhat broken
> trunk, or one that's taken a sharp right turn after the branch.  (I
> know, let's reorganize the svn repo *again*!)

I was thinking of times where we've moved things around signficantly
(like with shared) or we've discontinued major functionality (like
with dummy forms) or obsoleted a component (like with t:newspaperTable
being merged into t:dataTable).

Re: The Tomahawk 1.1.4 branch

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

On 8/8/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The branch already exists.  Changing the version number to (for
> example) 1.1.3.1-SNAPSHOT, fixing a single important bug, and
> releasing it quickly would be much better than starting over from the
> trunk, getting distracted by other changes, and having it drag on for
> weeks.

And if we're not going to do something like this, then there's little
point in users reporting bugs on older versions.   We might as well
tell them up front that they need to upgrade to the latest version and
verify that the bug exists because we're not patching the older
versions.

I've already started doing this for all 1.1.3 and earlier issues since
I don't see us fixing anything in those branches.

Re: The Tomahawk 1.1.4 branch

[Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>]

On 8/8/06, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> After a branch, all changes should be made to the trunk.
>
> If a branch has a major-priority error that has been fixed in trunk,
> it should be merged back to the branch (and ideally, a new minor
> branch release would be made <1.1.major.minor>).

At this point I'm focused on getting the first release off the branch,
but I saw that you mentioned this in another thread, and I like it.

The branch already exists.  Changing the version number to (for
example) 1.1.3.1-SNAPSHOT, fixing a single important bug, and
releasing it quickly would be much better than starting over from the
trunk, getting distracted by other changes, and having it drag on for
weeks.

> There may be times when a major branch bug cannot be fixed on trunk,
> at which point applying the fix solely to the branch would be
> appropriate.

Agreed, though it should be rare.  At least, I'm having trouble
thinking up a reason that doesn't involve either a somewhat broken
trunk, or one that's taken a sharp right turn after the branch.  (I
know, let's reorganize the svn repo *again*!)

Thanks,
-- 
Wendy

Re: The Tomahawk 1.1.4 branch

[Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>]

Since my opinion on the matter has been misinterpreted previously, let
me try to restate it here.

After a branch, all changes should be made to the trunk.

If a branch has a major-priority error that has been fixed in trunk,
it should be merged back to the branch (and ideally, a new minor
branch release would be made <1.1.major.minor>).

There may be times when a major branch bug cannot be fixed on trunk,
at which point applying the fix solely to the branch would be
appropriate.


On 8/8/06, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After Core 1.1.4 is done, should we delete the tomahawk branch that
> was created on June 21st, and re-copy it from the 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT
> trunk?
>
> I think there have been several changes on the trunk that ought to be
> in the next release, and it's probably easier to start over.
>
> Which brings up another point.  IMO, after the branch, development
> should continue on the trunk, and changes should be merged to the
> branch if they absolutely must be in the release.
>
> To me, the branch exists to protect the release from late breaking
> changes, but I've seen posts that promote the opposite, applying fixes
> to the branch and merging them back to the trunk.
>
> If you plan to work on the Tomahawk release, which way do you prefer to do it?
>
> --
> Wendy
>