Proposal: rename v3-3-test to v3-devel (discussion on#samba-technical)

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

One more thing, while the $SUBJECT says proposal, this is not
a proposal at this time.  Just a summary and thoughts for future
releases.  Sorry.  Meant to change the $SUBJECT before I sent
the msg out.




jerry
Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> (I see that Michael has beat me to the summary but since
> I've already spent some time on diagrams here, I'll still
> sending the mail out).
> 
> This is an informative mail only for explanation and
> discussion.  No changes affected by this mail. :-)
> 
> There was a lot of discussion about the v3-3-test branch
> on #samba-technical so I'll try to summarize it here:
> 
> Basically what we have in git history is
> 
> ---- v3-0-test ----+---+-----
>      \
>       \---- v3-2-test ----+---+-----
>             \
>              \---- v3-3-test ----+---+-----
> 
> --- v4-0-test ----+---+-----
> 
> Since the Samba 4 branch basically has a completely separate
> code history, I'll ignore it for the branch discussion that
> follows.
> 
> My experience has been that developers like to continue coding
> while release managers like to stop it :-)  So the only real
> way to keep both sides sane is to move the developers to another
> branch so that the rate of change in the release tree drops.
> 
> Kai made the point that we are indirectly simply using
> a trunk & release model:
> 
> 
> ----- v3-devel (a.k.a. trunk) ----+----+----+----+----
>    \                   \              \
>     \----v3-0 ----      \---- v3-2-    \---- v3-3
> 
> which is much more intuitive and actually requires less
> branching for developers, but more for the RM (release manager).
> All of these are variations on the same work flow we have
> always done when it comes right down to it.
> 
> In an effort to reduce the confusion, the suggestion was
> made that v3-3-test should really be called v3-devel.  When
> the November/December release is ready, Karolin would simply
> branches from v3-devel to create a v3-3 branch for release.
> All coders simply work on the v3-devel branch and never
> have to worry about branching again.  To which Guenther
> replied:
> 
>    gd: +1 on v3-devel
> 
> The side effect of this model (release every 6 months and
> increment the minor revision number) is that all micro
> releases (3.X.y where y is the micro release) are strictly
> bug fix releases and no more letter releases.  To this
> one point, Simo posted:
> 
>    idra: I love anyone that agrees on dropping letters :-)
> 
> And clearly using the trunk & release model, we could
> potentially drop the -stable branch al together since
> anything checked into the v3-X release branch is required
> to already be "stable".
> 
> The executive summary of this is that
> 
>   A. Developers no longer have to worry about changing
>      branches after release
>   B. The release manager no long has to cherry-pick fixes
>      but still has a high degree of confidence in the release
>   C. No one is blocked waiting for a "pull" to the release
>      branch.
> 
> Hope this makes more sense to people now.  No more branching
> changes right now.  Just work on v3-3-test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cheers, jerry

- --
=====================================================================
Samba                                    ------- http://www.samba.org
Likewise Software          ---------  http://www.likewisesoftware.com
"What man is a man who does not make the world better?"      --Balian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIEgdpIR7qMdg1EfYRAm7/AJ48xNbUzgOzb1FD5Iy2QQ13eyEBhgCgpz0b
bD8YVdpB7kdh2VcpsaQBsY4=
=tpbD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----