Next focus: PROCESS

[deadalnix]

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.