From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA28144; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:11:34 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA28194 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:11:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g6UEBUj05682; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:11:30 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id QAA27799; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:11:29 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:11:29 +0200 From: Xavier Leroy To: Sven LUTHER Cc: John Prevost , Caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] bug-fix branches Message-ID: <20020730161129.A27941@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <20020729144527.A30919@pauillac.inria.fr> <000f01c2377c$36263060$2097fea9@janxp> <86vg6xlktk.fsf_-_@laurelin.dementia.org> <20020730095833.B6564@pauillac.inria.fr> <20020730083751.GA1041@iliana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20020730083751.GA1041@iliana>; from luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr on Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 10:37:51AM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > Xavier, don't you think it would be a good time for going with a dual cvs > branch scheme or something like that, where you have a released branch > (3.05, and bugfix releases : 3.05.1, 3.05.2, etc) and a development > branch (which will become 3.06). The need for this isn't apparent yet: we haven't yet encountered a situation where a show-stopper bug appears, but the main CVS branch is far from a releasable state. One reason for this is that major evolutions of the system, e.g. polymorphic methods or dynamic loading of C libraries, are carried on separate branches, and merged back only when they are in a usable state. > In this case, will you revert all your changes and reapply after having > released the bugfix version, hurry the developpment so you can ship the > new version fixing the bug, or just let the bug stay until the next > version is released ? If that happens, we'll do what works best, and that might very well be a bugfix branch. But, frankly, this is our internal "cuisine", and I don't see why you and other users should care. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners