I see no simplification in calling release branch "release" over using versioned name. Merging it back and deleting is right thing to do but there is a benefit in keeping names unambiguous in terms of pure communication.

We have yet to read Andrew feedback about how cumbersome will be resolving conflicts upon branch merge to master with such approach. I will reserve my judgement until then ;)

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Andrew Edwards <edwards.ac@gmail.com> wrote:

On 1/23/14, 1:10 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:

Yes it did. Once 2.065 is released, the branch will be merged back into master and then deleted.

When it's time to prepare 2.066, a new release branch will be created. See
http://wiki.dlang.org/Simplified_Release_Process_Proposal for additional information.

I don't know who to be mad at here, but this is getting !@#$@@#$ing stupid.

I've never had a problem taking responsibility for the decisions I make so you can be mad at me if it makes you feel better.

Per-release branches were working fine.  They make it easy to keep adding fixes to after release. They're simple.  They're easy to track. Etc etc.  They're tried and true for oh so many projects.

I fail to see how "release" makes it many more difficult but I will concede that keeping the branch around does simplify the process of adding fixes after release.

Sigh, how many more ways is this release going to suck?

I'll reserve my opinion here!

_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
dmd-beta@puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta