[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Branching 1.6.x this week

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:53:21 -0500

"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> writes:
> IIUC, today we have the worst scenario -- trunk isn't stable in either sense
> of the word. We absolutely shouldn't branch in this condition, because it
> is an outright violation of our policies. But assuming we achieve type-I
> stability, the question then becomes whether we require type-II stability
> before branching. This is probably something that needs to be codified in
> our release management procedures.

If we still have failing tests on trunk [1], then we shouldn't branch
(and how did we get into that situation anyway??).

But I don't think type-II stability is required. If a feature is
incomplete at branch time, then on the release branch we should just
(for example) comment out the new options that provide access to that
feature. The code itself can remain on trunk and on the branch. It
won't hurt anything by itself.

[1] By "failing tests", I mean tests that actually FAIL. Assuming that
our XFAIL markings are fair -- that is, they're being used for
incomplete features and for new tests of newly-discovered,
tested-but-not-yet-fixed, non-showstopper bugs -- then XFAILs are okay.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-12 15:53:36 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.