Re: merge maint into master

[Akim Demaille]

Le 19 mars 2012 à 15:45, Paul Eggert a écrit :

> On 03/19/2012 03:45 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
>> I would prefer to see fixes installed in maint, and then
>> merge maint occasionally into master, this is seems more
>> tractable to me.  I practiced this elsewhere, and it's really
>> nice.
> 
> I'm used to a system where 'master' is the
> "latest and greatest" version.

Which is also the case here.

> This is more
> common in GNU projects, I think; anyway, it's
> what's used for Emacs, glibc, coreutils, etc.
> Of course the "maint" approach also works (it's
> what git uses itself), and if you prefer that
> mode of operation that's fine, but in a
> project as small as Bison pretty much anything will
> do, and surely it should be OK if some developers
> install fixes directly into 'master'.

Yet if they are installed in maint, then merging
maint into master will make sure that nothing is
lost.  The converse does not hold: since obviously
master is not to be merged into maint, it is easy
to miss patches.

The current system is too demanding imho.


Is Bison the only project (among those) to issue
maintenance releases?