[Gdal-dev] RFC 3: GDAL Commiter Guildlines

Andrey Kiselev dron at ak4719.spb.edu
Fri Oct 27 12:17:56 EDT 2006


On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 11:21:33AM -0400, Frank Warmerdam 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?

Stable branches are great, definitely I like such a thing!

> 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.

Ok, that is clear for me now, the branching strategy will be defined
separately. You can count my "+1" for RFC3.

Best regards,

Andrey V. Kiselev
ICQ# 26871517

More information about the Gdal-dev mailing list