W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Validator changes: 0_6_0 or HEAD?

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:32:18 +0100
To: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
cc: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <a01060007-1022-37963B73038E11D7B52A00039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

Wooops! That was supposed to go to QA Dev. Serves me right for answering
email after 24 hours without sleep. :-)



Terje Bless <link@pobox.com> wrote:

>Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>>I'm confused about where to commit validator changes at the moment, to
>>0_6_0-branch or HEAD?  Are you planning a 0_6_0 -> HEAD merge after
>>0.6.1 is out?
>
>Short version: check in to 0_6_0-branch or HEAD depending on whether
>it's small fix that should be in the 0.6.1 release or a larger change
>that is targetted for "some future version". Yes, I plan to merge 0.6.x
>onto the trunk after 0.6.1 is out the door.
>
>
>Long Version:
>
>I'm planning a 0.6.1 release (hopefully even some time around this
>weekend) with mostly just bug fixes. This is what's happening on the
>validator-0_6_0-branch.
>
>HEAD is a freeforall (more or less) to add big or distruptive new stuff.
>Eventually we'll branch for validator-0_7_0-(branch|release) and any
>maintenance releases for that.
>
>Once 0.6.1 is out the door I'll merge validator-0_6_0-branch onto HEAD.
>Similarly if we need a 0.6.2 release; including a merge after that too.
>
>
>The idea is that HEAD is at any given moment almost by definition broken
>and in flux. When we want to work towards a release we split off a
>branch where we can be as anal as necessary about changes to achieve
>stability without hindering new feature work on HEAD.
>
>Merging after a release, instead of doing it concurrently, is just so
>small fixes to a release branch don't have to be slowed down by
>determining how and if they shoudl be applied to HEAD. Especially since
>many bug fixes -- both in terms of what they fix and in how they are
>implemented -- are specific to the release branch and/or no longer apply
>to the HEAD.
>
>
>For /really/ disruptive stuff I envision making experimental branches
>even off from HEAD so that you can still work on HEAD while someone is
>off redefining the world (typically; the template system or modularizing
>the validator).
>
>It's a bit more expensive because you have to spend time merging
>periodically, but I think it'll end up being much cleaner in the long
>run.
-- 
"I don't mind being thought of as a badguy,
 but it /really/ annoys me to be thought of
 as an *incompetent* badguy!" -- John Moreno
Received on Friday, 29 November 2002 06:32:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:43 GMT