Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Huh? We've *always* released from the tip of the 1.y.x branch.
> Releasing from something other than that seems like it would involve a
> bit more process than we currently use, but maybe the new features make
> that possible now. Personally, I'd rather not mess with additional
> release branches; if we don't want to include stuff that's already been
> merged, let's just back it out, cut the tarball, and then remerge it (and
> pray mergetracking works as advertised).
"We've always done it that way" isn't necessarily the best argument for a
particular action, but in this case, +1. Merge tracking doesn't suddenly
making the "soft costs" of branch management go away. Let's just
reverse-merge stuff we don't want (which should re-add those things to
STATUS, though we then want to move them into the 1.5.1 recommendations),
and carry on.
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-05-22 21:55:13 CEST