From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from primenet.com.au (ns1.primenet.com.au [203.24.36.2]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 0aff6f92 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2020 14:53:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 10373 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2020 14:53:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: X-Seq: 45442 Received: (qmail 3856 invoked by uid 1010); 16 Feb 2020 14:53:04 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from know-smtprelay-omc-10.server.virginmedia.net by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.102.1/25718. spamassassin: 3.4.2. Clear:RC:0(80.0.253.74):SA:0(-2.0/5.0):. Processed in 0.684861 secs); 16 Feb 2020 14:53:04 -0000 X-Envelope-From: p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at _smtprelay.virginmedia.com designates 80.0.253.74 as permitted sender) X-Originating-IP: [86.16.88.158] X-Authenticated-User: p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com X-Spam: 0 X-Authority: v=2.3 cv=Rovr0huK c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=MiHCjVqLJ44lE3bxSlffFQ==:117 a=MiHCjVqLJ44lE3bxSlffFQ==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=zQtZqEoSZmDkbfmXG0EA:9 a=lz6ga1tjEJNqXsws:21 a=SkDTLAB2bNJtp8ho:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 Message-ID: <8d2e948fc2ccc44a24beb1c0dc2e82b7809fa36a.camel@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: Plan for the 5.9 branch From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 14:52:29 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20200216111511.73ea28fa@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> References: <20200216111511.73ea28fa@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5-0ubuntu0.18.04.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfIInn11ZFI1QtUBB7X1VYZJSRKf9dBsU7rVDmDj5rF6+eg/mwqxDJ5bF7cmKQvA2mo4+r/nQb7Mn2VQl/pOZxtWKNcRsVbwALd4+aw6Zb9DDGsdmDtLQ kluP6IiszLQCh6qLu4Z+QGy4PYk3RK8JdspFrViGft5XQMV9z7ZUKcVT On Sun, 2020-02-16 at 11:15 +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > A few weeks ago I created a 5.9 branch for bugfixes/patches that seemed > too risky to push to master during pre-release stabilization. > > I'd like to merge that branch to master in a few weeks, when it's clear > there won't be a 5.8.1 for regressions. > > (Alternatively, we could merge the branch now; that won't block us from > creating a 5.8.1 regression-fixing release with or without the changes > from the 5.9 branch.) We can probably wait the odd week to see if there's any sorting out, but there doesn't seem to be any point hanging on too long. > As to branching policy, in the future we should probably do things the > other way around; that is: in the run-up to the 5.9 release next year, > rather than stabilize on master and open a 5.10 branch for destabilizing > changes, we should open a 5.9 branch for stabilization and leave master > open to destabilizing changes. > > (Fortunately, due to how git fast-forward merges work, the current 5.9 > branch won't interfere with this plan.) That would be more standard. The counter argument is that anyone tracking the shell is most likely to stick with the master branch, so that's the one that gets the most testing. However, as long as all changes are on the master branch we should see any issues with the release anyway. pws