[spambayes-dev] More CVS branch/tags questions

[Richie Hindle]

[Mark]
> My understanding is that we are moving towards 1.0 on the release_1_0
> branch.  Is that correct?

I think so, yes.  release_1_0 was supposed to be bugfix-only, and the head
(moving towards version 1.1) was for enhancements.  Here's Tony's original
mail:

> As discussed earlier, I've created a cvs branch - 'release_1_0' - to move
> toward 1.0b1 and then 1.0.
> 
> If I understand things rightly (going by Jeremy and Richie's comments) the
> main branch is now for 1.1 work, so is un-feature frozen ;).  If people
> could check 1.0 bugfixes into the release_1_0 branch (and 1.1, as needed),
> that would be great.

Re-reading Tony's mail, I should have pointed out at the time that we
shouldn't commit edits to both places, but should use "cvs up [-j
moving-tag] -j release_1_0" to periodically merge the bugfix branch onto
the head.  Nuts.

>From looking at the logs, it seems you're right, Mark - bugfixes have been
hitting the head instead of release_1_0.  Also, some fixes have been
committed to both the head and release_1_0, which will probably make
merging release_1_0 back onto the head a pain - you always get more
conflicts when you do that.  (I should have encouraged more discussion of
branch strategy when all this came up - we make heavy use of CVS branches
at work, and we know a bit about how best to manage them.)

One thing that CVS is spectacularly bad at is giving you an overview of
what's been happening, so it's hard to say where we should go from here.
How much enhancement work has gone onto the head since release_1_0 was
taken?  If it's not very much then maybe we should just give it a solid
testing then merge release_1_0 back onto the head as soon as 1.0a7 is out.
We then either take 1.0a8 from the head (bletch) or start again with a new
bugfix branch and a better-advertised branch management strategy...

-- 
Richie two-commits-in-two-months-like-he-has-room-to-talk Hindle
richie at entrian.com