[Linux-ha-dev] Linux-HA CVS
alanr at unix.sh
Thu Mar 15 07:42:29 MST 2001
David Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Alan Robertson wrote:
> > I'm about to declare the 0.4.8n release the new stable release (0.4.9).
> > The next bit of work we have planned will be unusually disruptive.
> > I need to create a CVS branch or two and am looking for advice.
> > Should I create a stable branch for 0.4.9, or should I create a development
> > branch?
> > My inclination would be to create the stable branch for 0.4.9, because I
> > think there is far less likelyhood of mistakes that way than if I do it the
> > other way. With any luck, I won't need to put out any delta releases
> > against 0.4.9 until we get the tree stabilized again.
> > Anyone have any advice / experience on this topic?
> Glad to hear of the progress.
> Disclaimer: I have no experience whatsoever of CVS, so can offer no
> But I notice from my copy of the CVS documentation "Version Management
> with CVS (for CVS 1.10.8)" that chapter 5, section 5.1, mentions an
> example which seems similar to yours:
> stable release; a month or so of development; interim fixes to stable
> It seems to hint at developing on the main trunk (is this "HEAD"?), and
> doing any necessary bugfixes to the stable version on a separate branch.
> "The thing to do is a situation like this is to create a _branch_ on the
> revision trees for all the files that make up release 1.0 of 'tc' [I think
> this corresponds to release 0.4.9 of 'linux-ha']. You can then make
> modifications to the branch without disturbing the main trunk. When the
> modifications are finished you can elect to either incorporate(*) them on
> the main trunk, or leave them on the branch"
I have a copy of Open Source Development with CVS, and they recommend the
same thing. I also got a similar email from someone on my local LUG list.
That's probably what I'll do.
-- Alan Robertson
alanr at unix.sh
More information about the Linux-HA-Dev