What should/shouldn't go into v3-4-test

[Jeremy Allison]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 06:05:18PM -0700, Tim Prouty wrote:
> Starting a new thread from "Re: Proposal: Add v3-4-test to the build  
> farm, and revamp the build farm policy".
>
>
> On Mar 24, 2009, at 12:53 AM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
>
>> BTW, what is the difference between 3.4 and master at the
>> moment?
>
> v3-4-test is release branch and master is a development branch.  The  
> goal is to stabilize v3-4-test so it can be released in the upcoming  
> months, while master remains as the current development HEAD.
>
> I don't think the specifics of what this means are documented anywhere.  
> Karolin, maybe you can comment here.  As a start, I propose the 
> following:
>
> * Samba4 changes should not go into v3-4-test since v3-4-test is a  
> samba3 release.
> * Franky/merge-build work should not go into v3-4-test.
> * v3-4-test commits should be limited to bug fixes and patches that will 
> help stabilize the code.
> * New feature development and large destabilizing changes shouldn't go  
> into v3-4-test.
>
> This means that v3-4-test and master will diverge, but it also means  
> that v3-4-test will become a solid release.  Production quality code  
> needs time and testing to stabilize, which is why these release branches 
> exist.  We are doing a lot of QA internally on v3-4-test, and would like 
> to see it continue to stabilize rather than be a quasi-development branch 
> for the next three months.
>
> Any thoughts?

+1 - good summary of what we're trying to do here.

Jeremy.