Re: Stable repo

[Rik]

> Development in the main archive takes place in stages, as described
> here, http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html, under the heading "Stages".  To
> summarize, the three stages are:
>
>   stage 1: anything goes; this is the time to merge large new features
>            or do other major restructuring.  In Octave, this would be
>            things like rewriting the symbol table to add support for
>            classes
>
>   stage 2: only smaller changes and bug fixes
>
>   stage 3: bug fixes or documentation changes only, no new features
>
> The goal is to have each stage last for approximately two months, so
> releases can happen every 6 months or so.  We might tweak the
> durations somewhat, though aiming for two months for each stage
> doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
>
> In addition, development of crazy new features takes place on branches
> in the main archive, though for Octave I would propose that we use
> separate archives for experimentation, and they could be hosted
> anywhere.  Even when the main development tree is in stage 2 or 3,
> major developments may still be taking place in other archives.
> Changes from those archives can be merged when mainline enters stage 1
> again.  Feature freezes don't last too long
>
> What you're describing for the stable archive sounds sort of like the
> GCC model, with the "main" archive taking on (more or less) the role
> of the experimental branches.
>
> I guess I don't see why we need the main (experimental) archive to be
> on savannah, or, if it is hosted there, why we would want to restrict
> ourselves to just one experimental archive.
If I were trying something really experimental I would be doing it in a
very private repo on my own computer; I wouldn't want it hosted anywhere
else.  On my own PC I can create as many experimental archives as desired
so I don't see that we are restricting ourselves.

I do think we need a single canonical repo that people look to for
changes.  I don't
want to have to pull from 10 different personal developer archives to
get near the tip
of development.  First, I wouldn't necessarily know which developers
those 10 are
and, second, they might not feel like hosting Mercurial access. 
>
> If there is an "anything goes" attitude toward the main archive, then
> how does pulling and merging from main to stable help us generate
> high-quality stable releases?  I mean, if you pull every change from
> main, then aren't you likely to get some half-baked things in the
> stable archive that will cause trouble for a release? 
Jaroslav might have a different idea but I would pull from main to stable
only during stage 1 when large changes are expected to be introduced.
At some point stage 2 is declared and pulling stops and the work
in the stable repo shifts to making sure newly the introduced code works
well. 
Development in the main repo continues just as it ever did without regard to
the schedule for the stable repo.

--Rik