D versionning

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 16-07-2012 03:11, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/15/12 7:44 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
>> I should note that we use this exact model for every project we have
>> where I work and that it is been highly successful at keeping those five
>> points of tension moderated. And our users can actually get work done
>> without waiting for weeks and months because thing X is just plain
>> broken, which in turn makes us look good. (Improving Loyalty)
>
> Allow me to propose something.
>
> Right now all dmd changes get merged in the head. Suppose we find a
> volunteer in the community who is:
>
> 1. Highly motivated
>
> 2. With a good understanding of D
>
> 3. Expert with git
>
> 4. Reliable
>
> I wonder if it's possible that that person cherry-picks commits from
> HEAD into two separate branches: bugfixes and unstable. It should be
> easy to create installers etc. for those.
>
> If we see this works well and gathers steady interest, we can improve it
> and make it the practice of the entire team.
>
> Would this be possible?
>
>
> Andrei
>

I propose a slight variation:

* master: This is the 'incoming' branch. Unstable, in-dev, etc. It's 
easier this way since pull requests will usually target this branch and 
build bots will test this.
* stable: This branch contains only bug fixes to existing language 
features, and enhancements that do not in any way impact existing 
features (or break code). Should be manually maintained based on master.

That's it. I don't see a need for any added complexity to this simple 
model. Feel free to destroy as you see fit, though!

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex at lycus.org
http://lycus.org