On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.net wrote:
On 11/18/15 Nov 18 -3:32 PM, Faré wrote:
OK, so here is a concrete proposal for branch names:
- "master" for the latest uncontroversial developments, which will become 3.2
- various topic branches to hold controversial or incomplete changes
- "release" for the latest release, which will remain 3.1 then become 3.2
- "3.1" for work continued work on ASDF 3.1 after master becomes 3.2
- "release-3.1" for stable releases of ASDF 3.1 after release becomes 3.2
This sounds mostly ok. I kind of prefer "stable" to "3.1" for continued work on the 3.1 series.
Rationale: "stable" can't be confused with one of our release tags, the way a numerical branch name could be.
I hadn't thought about there being continued stable releases after we move release to 3.2. Hmmmmm.....
Yeah, there's an awkward merge or rebase happening when "stable" jumps from 3.1 to 3.2, whereas no such jump happens if old branches have numbered names and are forked off a master that keeps going forward.
One more open question:
If we move master to be the 3.2 series, then how do we number the interim versions? Previously, 3.1.x.y has been a release candidate for 3.1.x+1, which has been only mildly awkward. But if we start version numbering candidates for the next release this way, then testing with :version really won't work, and there's some danger of version numbering collisions between stable and testing.
We could have m.n.0.[1-] be release candidates for m.n, and just always have the final release be m.n.1, which would keep the :VERSION tests working.
That's more or less what we ended doing with 3.1.
PS: I removed some of the ancient ASDF 2 compatibility and code to upgrade from it in a fine-grained way — now all implementations "punt" when upgrading from asdf 2, i.e. rename away the old asdf package without trying to reuse its symbols, variables, functions.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org It's possible to program a computer in English. It's also possible to make an airplane controlled by reins and spurs. — John McCarthy