On Friday 02 June 2017 12:28 AM, Fabio Niephaus wrote:
As Tim F. already mentioned, the initial idea was to use Cog as the dev branch, and the master for stable releases. Unfortunately, we don't have a working procedure for releasing new OpenSmalltalkVMs. I dared to create releases when we "had to" and after I asked Eliot for his recommendation.
I admit to feeling a bit confused about this 'master'.
But it would be much nicer to have more frequent releases which our CI infrastructure allows us to do.
+1. Eliot is right in proposing in an earlier post on taking a step back to look at the overall design now that we have Git and CI.
My understanding of a master branch is the opposite of what is described above :-(. In a typical project, it is the master (or trunk) branch which is under active development and receives a stream of feature and repair patches. At some point of stability, it undergoes a feature freeze and starts taking in only repairs. Freeze helps get more eyeballs on clearing bug backlog yielding a series of candidate releases culminating in 'public release', tagged and branched to a maintenance branch. The master is then opened up for feature patches and the cycle proceeds. Release branch is then actively maintained with security and compat patches for two cycles (so that git bisect can be used to trace regressions).
Regards .. Subbu