Next focus: PROCESS

RenatoUtsch renatoutsch at gmail.com
Sat Dec 15 12:53:44 PST 2012


On Saturday, 15 December 2012 at 20:39:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 December 2012 at 20:32:42 UTC, Jesse Phillips 
> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 15 December 2012 at 10:29:55 UTC, Dmitry 
>> Olshansky wrote:
>>> Second point is about merging master into staging - why not 
>>> just rewrite it with master branch altogether after each 
>>> release?
>>> master is the branch with correct history (all new stuff is 
>>> rebased on it) thus new staging will have that too.
>>
>> Why you don't rewrite is because it is a public branch. Unlike 
>> feature branches which will basically be thrown out everyone 
>> on the development team will need to have staging updated. If 
>> we rewrite history then instead of
>>
>> $ git pull staging
>>
>> At random times it will be (I don't know the commands and 
>> won't even look it up)
>>
>> It just won't be pretty.
>>
>>
>> I've made modifications to the graphic hoping to illustrate 
>> some thoughts.
>>
>> http://i.imgur.com/rJVSg.png
>>
>> This does not depict what is currently described (in terms of 
>> branching). But is what I've written under 
>> http://wiki.dlang.org/Release_Process#Release_Schedule
>>
>> I see patches going into the LTS-1 (if applicable), the LTS-1 
>> is then merged into the latest LTS, which is merged into any 
>> active staging, that is then merged into master.
>>
>> The monthly release don't get bug fixes (just wait for the 
>> next month).
>>
>> I've removed some version numbering since I don't know if we 
>> should have a distinct numbering for LTS and Monthly. I've 
>> already give some thoughts on this: 
>> http://forum.dlang.org/post/ydmgqmbqngwderfkljde@forum.dlang.org
>
> Can we drop the LTS name ? It reminds me of ubuntu, and I 
> clearly hope that people promoting that idea don't plan to 
> reproduce ubuntu's scheme :
>  - it is not suitable for a programming language (as stated 3 
> time now, so just read before why I won't repeat it).
>  - ubuntu is notoriously unstable.

Of course, lets just call it "stable", then. Or you have a better 
name?

Anyways, I do think that "stable" releases every 3 or more years 
and monthly or every 3 months releases are the best solution to 
the current D users.

-- Renato


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list