[GRASS-dev] GRASS 6.4.0 release branch forthcoming

[Paul Kelly]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Markus Neteler wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Glynn Clements
> <glynn at gclements.plus.com> wrote:
>> I'd be more concerned about 6.3.1, as there have been a fair number of
>> straightforward bug-fixes since 6.3.0.
>
> Well, I know easily 50 fixes which I have NOT backported to 6.3.svn, knowing,
> that 6.4.0.RCX is forthcoming soon. Many are related to portability, too.
> So I do think that we need a 6.4.0 the next months (at least I won't go through
> all those fixes to check if they are present in 6.3.svn - even the code layout
> isn't reindented).

I'm not sure if this is what Glynn meant, but I ask - why does 6.3.1 have
to be released from the 6.3.0 release branch? Why not just release 6.3.1 
straight from develbranch_6? I really don't see the need to always have a 
release branch for releases. IMHO it slows things down and is a major 
impediment to "release early, release often" working.

I feel a release branch is only needed when a stable release is being made 
from a branch and major development work is going to continue in that 
branch and needs to be isolated from the release. This did not apply to 
6.3.0 (because it wasn't a stable release) and will not apply to the next 
release, whatever we call it (because major development work is now 
happening in trunk).

If the release of 6.4.0 means a feature freeze for 6.x, then I think we 
should not do it yet and should release more 6.3.x versions direct from 
develbranch_6 until we feel ready to freeze 6.x and gamble the future on 
7.x. If on the other hand 6.4.0 does not mean a feature freeze and we are 
still going to be able to add new modules (e.g. from Summer of Code in 
2009?) and there will be 6.5.x and 6.6.x releases, then I don't see a 
problem with going ahead with 6.4.0 but I think if we are careful to 
manage features and bug fixes then there is no need for a release branch. 
Three branches would be really awkward for backporting and I feel we 
should avoid it if at all possible.

Paul