Re: Stable vs. Default branch

[John W. Eaton]

On  3-Oct-2011, Michael D Godfrey wrote:

| On 10/03/2011 09:05 AM, Rik wrote:
| 
|      Alternatively, we keep all development on the
|     default branch and only do the merge right before preparing 3.6 release
|     candidates.
| 
|     --Rik
| 
| This seems preferable to me.  This would allow, if necessary,
| an "incremental" update of the current release without any extra
| effort.  It is convenient to have a branch of the current release just
| in case...

I agree.  Since we can't be sure that there won't be problems with
releasing 3.6, I think we should leave open the possibility of easily
making a 3.4.x release as long as possible.  Sure, if we merge default
to stable now and then find we need another 3.4.x release, we could
always go back and branch and transplant a bunch of patches, but I
don't see why we force ourselves into that situation unless we have
to.

OTOH, as we get closer to the 3.6 release, we will want to avoid
making changes on default that are too risky or disruptive.  If we
find that is holding us back in some way, we could always create
another branch for those kinds of changes that could be merged with
default after default is merged with stable.

jwe