[yt-dev] Branches post 3.0

Nathan Goldbaum nathan12343 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 23 10:32:33 PDT 2014


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan Goldbaum <nathan12343 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> Yesterday during the doc sprint, the question of what to do about
> >> branches post-3.0 came up.  Currently there are three branches, which
> >> correspond to different names on the front page of the yt homepage.
> >>
> >>  * Stable => The branch into which bug fixes are merged, but not a lot
> >> of active development occurs.
> >>  * yt => The 2.x development branch, which has slowed almost to a halt
> >>  * yt-3.0 => The 3.0 development branch
> >>
> >> It seems there is broad consensus that after the release, the yt-3.0
> >> branch would be merged into the yt branch.  (I would like to hold off
> >> on "closing" the yt-3.0 branch for a while, however.)
> >
> >
> > Why is that?
> >
>
> Because until we get to the point that every developer has issued PRs
> for all of their yt-3.0 development, we're going to have multiple
> instances of "closing yt-3.0".  Because it's decentralized, we can't
> force all, everywhere, to be closed.
>

Ah, of course that makes sense.  I guess we'll need to have two open
development branches and merge from the yt-3.0 branch into the yt branch
regularly.


>
> >>
> >> But, what is
> >> then to be done about the "stable" branch?  My thought was:
> >>
> >>  * stable => will be on 2.x for at least one release, until 3.1
> >>  * yt => 3.0
> >>  * yt-3.0 => we try to migrate development onto the yt branch, which
> >> is 3.0, but don't force yet
> >
> >
> > I'd be -1 on having bugfixes for 3.0 on two branches.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> The alternate idea was:
> >>
> >>  * stable => 3.0
> >>  * yt => 3.0
> >>  * yt-3.0 => closed
> >>
> >
> > I'd prefer this, possibly with another named branch named "legacy" that
> > contains 2.x.
> >
> >>
> >> I think we need a longer migration time for 2.x, though.  I will
> >> update YTEP-0008 with whatever we come up with, but is there a strong
> >> opinion for either of these options?  Option 1: stable stays 2.x for
> >> now, Option 2, stable becomes 3.0.
> >>
> >> -Matt
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> yt-dev mailing list
> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > yt-dev mailing list
> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140723/83ff36e1/attachment.html>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list