[Cosmo-dev] Next steps for Cosmo
travis at osafoundation.org
Tue Sep 4 14:44:02 PDT 2007
Forgot to get back to this... +1
On Aug 30, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Ted Leung wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Randy Letness wrote:
>> If we develop larger features in parallel, then those will
>> probably have to be done on a branch. We need to come up with
>> some best practices to keep code in sync so that we don't spend a
>> lot of time merging and handling conflicts. I know Brian has been
>> doing a bunch of work on the 0.8 branch and has been merging
>> changes from the trunk. Now if we have multiple branches, for
>> example if Brian and I are working on separate branches, then it
>> may get complicated.
> This is the big question that we need to settle for how to do
> branching. It seems inevitable to me that we are going to have a
> lot more branches than we have had in the past, in service of the
> goal of keeping things buildable/releasable. Unfortunately, svn
> doesn't have as much support as one might like for dealing with
> multiple branch development. Svn 1.5 is supposed to be a big
> upgrade in terms of merge tracking, but they are not done yet.
> However, the 1.5 feature set is based on svnmerge.py <http://
> www.orcaware.com/svn/wiki/Svnmerge.py>. I haven't had a chance
> to play with this myself, but I think that it is worth looking in to.
> As far as concrete branching proposals, the only one that I saw was
> 1. Base 0.7.x branches off the 0.7.0 final branch
> 2. Make the trunk 0.8
> 3. Make a branch of 0.9 in anticipation of that release
> I've no objections to this proposal as long as we keep the trunk in
> a releasable state as much as possible. This will be particularly
> important as we near the end of a release frame (which I propose to
> be 4 weeks long), so that we don't have to back stuff out because
> it doesn't get done in time.
> Does that work for people?
> cosmo-dev mailing list
> cosmo-dev at lists.osafoundation.org
More information about the cosmo-dev