aph at redhat.com
Mon Feb 23 07:25:07 PST 2009
Lillian Angel wrote:
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> 2009/2/23 Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>:
>>> Once the
>>> release is done, further bug fixes may be needed against the same
>>> release, so a release tree should never be re-used.
>> Reusing the same release tree seemed very strange to me as well. I
>> have the vain hope that having a release tree might mean we can have
>> an upstream backport of important things like security fixes. Hence,
>> I was thinking along the lines of something like releases/icedtea6/x
>> trees e.g. releases/icedtea6/1.4.1.
> I agree with this. Having a separate release tree for every release. It
> could initially be created as an exact copy of the main tree (or some
> tagged version), and appropriate patches could be applied or added. For
> minor releases, the differences between the main tree and the release
> tree could be significant. I think for major releases, the main tree
> should always be tagged as 1.x once the release tree is created.
> I may be completely off target. But what are everyone's thoughts on
> tagging the main tree after a release?
It's just standard practice: tag the trunk with the name of the branch,
make a copy from the tag, call that the branch.
In gcc we do this:
cp gcc-foo-branchpoint -> gcc-foo-branch
So you can do
diff gcc-foo-branchpoint gcc-foo-branch
to see what was changed on the branch, etc.
More information about the distro-pkg-dev