"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Michael Sperber writes:
> The reason why I advocated branching after GPLv3 is that I expect more
> aggressive development after that.
BTW, it occurs to me that there's really no point in doing this until
we have a release date in mind -- hg can rewind to anywhere we want
and branch from there ex post.
In particular, I intend doing both pre- and post-GPLv3-merge betas.
The former for the sake of 21.4 and Julian, and the latter because it
will be easy to do (the tedious parts of doing a release are (1)
getting a build and (2) writing the release notes, both of which
should be trivial post-GPLv3 given a pre-GPLv3 release) and seems like
a good checkpoint. So at any later date we can choose to base stable
on GPLv3-tag, or on GPLv3 plus low- hanging-fruit syncs (which are the
ones I think are likely to get committed first, anyway. WDYT?)
> So this is a good time to branch off for stability.
Do you still think that given the above discussion? Or is there
something I'm still missing?
It's a process question: If you branch off later, you'll have aggressive
development and bug fixes mixed, and that can't be easily separated
after the fact.
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
XEmacs-Beta mailing list