Hi,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 01:53:49PM -0500, Erik Schnetter wrote:
To avoid confusion which version of "the" stable version people are using, we should probably accumulate several patches in the stable branch before releasing the next version
I don't agree. It was my understanding that the stable branch can see changes if they were considered to be important enough. Assuming they are important enough to enter the stable branch I don't think it is a good idea to delay them.
There are two practices we could compare the ET with. One are releases of a typical program or library. Here each 'release' is a fixed blob of code, never to be changed again. If changes are necessary to a non-development branch there is still a new version number. The other practice is analog to security updates of a collection of software, like a linux distribution. As soon as an important (in this case security-related) bug is found it is corrected and clients are urged to update, keeping the version number the same.
I am leaning towards the second possibility: not delaying important patches and updating directly the release branch. That is why it is a branch, not a tag.
Most people won't update their stable version once they have it.
Then we need to tell them to do it.
For the time being, I would hold off committing any changes to the release branch until we've discussed this in more detail. Eric,
Agreed. We will have to discuss at least two patches on Monday. I will send details to the second in a separate email.
Frank