[Gdal-dev] RFC 3: GDAL Commiter Guildlines

Frank Warmerdam warmerdam at pobox.com
Fri Oct 27 11:21:33 EDT 2006

Andrey Kiselev wrote:
> That looks fine to me with except of the term 'stable branch'. I think
> it should be a policy related to release numbering and SVN branching 
> scheme, where it is supposed to be? Will it go in the separate RFC or be
> added to RFC3 later?


I'm not sure what you mean.  Are you suggesting that we won't want to have
stable branches? Or that we should avoid talking about branching till we
more fully describe it?  I am assuming that when we start having branches it
will be for stable release branches primarily, but the proposal isn't
intended to describe all use of branches, nor to set release strategy.
It does imply that such a thing as a "stable branch" may exist for some
reason, and that such a branch should be considered as requiring greater
care and rigor than "non stable" branches or trunks.

Best regards,

I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org

More information about the Gdal-dev mailing list