[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: CVS branching -> Git branching model
--On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:59 PM +0100 Hallvard Breien Furuseth
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:11 PM +0100 Hallvard Breien Furuseth
I think we should leave the current CVS-style branching model and
make better use of Git. 'master' is currently two things: The
development branch, and getting in the way it's an abandonware
repository: slapmodify, vc, etc. Maybe that's harsh, but if it is not
abandonware, why are the authors not finishing it so it can be released?
Some of it is years old.
Abandonware? What are you talking about? Both of those, AFAIK, are 2.5
features, which is why they haven't been released.
Aha, I hadn't caught that. I remember slapmodify (or the companion LDIF
api?) is buggy and had the distinct impression that this is well known.
I may have been thinking of contrib:ucn rather than contrib:vc.
<grepping...> a note from hyc @ irc: "ITSs against it [usn] should be
discarded since we already know it's not meant to be used". WTF...
Anyway, why can't slapmodify, <libldif replacement>, vc be finished and
go in RE24? contrib/ stuff does not get in the way, but companion
libldap/slapd differences beween master and RE24 do. They get in the
way of testing, cherry-picking etc.
There's a point at which a release tree is "feature frozen", and generally,
new features are not to get added into it, although we certainly break this
rule fairly regularly (delta-syncrepl, back-mdb both immediately come to
mind). But if we pulled everything we've done in the master branch to
RE24, then we'd have nothing to show for RE25 so far. ;)
In any case, whether or not to pull those things into RE24 from the master
repository is generally Howard's call as Chief Architect.
Sr. Member of Technical Staff
A Division of VMware, Inc.
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration