Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 17:14 +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:

Hi Kohei,

On Mon, 23 May 2011 10:08:38 -0400
Kohei Yoshida <kyoshida-Et1tbQHTxzrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:

Because that's what we decided to do during our TSC meeting IIRC.  The
premise was that we would do merge regularly into master, ~at least
once per week as we did during the 3.3 release.  But for some reason
we haven't merged stuff into master for months for the 3.4 release,
which was not expected.  I even did merge of the calc repo alone
because of the huge delay.

Well, my understanding was that the merge from release to master is
just a safety measure to make sure we are not missing something. It
should be a NoOp most of the time. Maybe I got that wrong.

What we decided to do was to just commit the safe fixes to the 3-4
branch and merge them into master in one go, to avoid duplication of
efforts, while at the same time somewhat risky fixes were to be done on
master first, then cherry-pick to the stable branch (if it's deemed
safe).  Note that many of us were (and still are?) focusing on
stabilizing the 3.4 branch and didn't have a working master.  So every
bit of effort to reduce duplication goes a long way in such
situations.  

Speaking for myself, I didn't have a working master build until my
assigned bugs have stabilized a bit, and I didn't want to commit to
master precisely because I didn't have a means to test it before
pushing.

 Work
should still be done on the most unstable branch IMHO and tickle down to
the more stable ones (under reviews, which might be suspended in the
beginning).

You tend to generalize a lot, while in general I agree with your view,
we also have to be flexible in changing the policy to balance our
resources if that's considered necessary.  IMO when we have a massive
flood of bug reports to deal with for 3.4, and not enough developers to
handle them, we have to adopt our rules to cater to that situation.

 Keep in mind this not only about dev-time (as in this case),
but also people are filing bugs against master, verifying them etc.

Are they!?  This surprises me.  I also monitor the bugzill reports quite
regularly and my understanding is that the majority of bugs are filed
against released versions, not against master.

Kohei

-- 
Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc
<kyoshida@novell.com>


Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.