From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx.bisdn.de (mx.bisdn.de [185.27.182.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57407E99 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:10:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.43] (42.Red-79-146-253.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [79.146.253.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.bisdn.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D23EDA2DA9; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:18:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5448C808.7040607@bisdn.de> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:19:04 +0200 From: Marc Sune User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Hemminger References: <544617E0.80502@bisdn.de> <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B0344210F9@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> <39275062.2hPoVIfNVy@xps13> <54462403.3060107@bisdn.de> <20141021183158.0dbd5c0e@uryu.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20141021183158.0dbd5c0e@uryu.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] development/integration branch? X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:10:08 -0000 On 21/10/14 15:01, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:14:43 +0200 > Marc Sune wrote: > >> On 21/10/14 10:46, Thomas Monjalon wrote: >>> My balance is different because I have a simpler solution for Marc's problem: >>> git fetch && git merge $(git tag | grep -v -- -rc | tail -n1) >> Thomas, >> >> We all know we _can_ do this. But is it really necessary? We should be >> all as lazy as possible and make it easy for users IMHO. `git pull` is >> easier :) >> >> I don't see any drawback of using a development branch, except if you >> consider the extra push to master per release a drawback. >> >> Also think about new users downloading the repo for the first time. They >> are forced to do this right now if they want to checkout the latest stable. >> >> marc > For most project master is the development branch and where patches > should be targeted. I don't know if most, but certainly some. > > If you want stable branch, then either use releases or volunteer to > maintain a "master-stable" branch. There is no need to _maintain_ any master-stable branch because that would be == to the latest stable tag, so it is just a push. You can give me push access for that if you want. I also agree that would be interesting to have release branches, independently if the development branch where patches are integrated is the master or not. Marc