Re: So what next?

Keith Packard writes:
 > 
 > Around 18 o'clock on Apr 8, Egbert Eich wrote:
 > 
 > > I would like to do the merge of RELEASE-1 before the other merge.
 > > I've set a base tag to simplify this, and I'm afraid this will not
 > > work if we merge to head first.
 > 
 > Yes, I was wrong -- this is clearly the right order.  We need to appoint 
 > someone to do this task; it isn't something which can be shared.  I think 
 > it should be either you (Egbert) or I as we have more complete knowledge 
 > about how RELEASE-1 was hacked together.

I will do a merge of the branches today. I'll test and announce it
before doing the commit.
I have noticed that people have been starting to create branches
on the RELEASE-1 branch.
Except for special purposes (like the TM branch) this should *not*
happen.
Also we need to document a branching policy on our Wiki
and need to have an area where each branch is described.
Here I'm thinking of a central page containing 
1. the branch names of *active* branches, 
2. a short description 
3. a list of names of the branch maintainer(s)
4. if applicable a link to further information on the project.
   Once a branch is no longer in use this information should be 
   moved to someplace else.


 > 
 > > I certainly would not mind to have the ongoing development taking 
 > > place in HEAD. XFree86 moved to this structure years ago and I know
 > > nothing that would speak against it.
 > 
 > Once XORG-CURRENT is really current, then moving that to HEAD should be 
 > simple.  I think we have rough concensus that this is the right thing to 
 > do.

Yes, I just need to figure out how to do it.

 > 
 > > This gives no value to the user and just delays things.
 > > We need to get technology out to remain credible.
 > 
 > I believe we will not have concensus on this issue anytime soon and that we
 > need a formal conflict resolution process here.
 > 
 > I'm feel strongly that now is the best time to make the migration to a
 > modular build system, and that separating the build system transition from
 > any technical changes will give people the greatest confidence in the new
 > system.  Doing that transition at the same time we add a bunch of new code
 > will be very hard on everyone.

I'm not so sure about this. I'm not even sure if there is a consensus
how the build system will look like. Some people have proposed a new
build system. 
Speaking of myself I have issues with this build system. Contrary to
what has been promised I have *not* received a satisfactory answer to
my questions.
The following answers do *not* qualify as satisfactory:
1. "Some people may loose but think of the benefit for the others."
2. "I don't know off hand how to do this we should take a closer
   look at the documentation."
3. "I'm sure it can be done but I don't know off hand how."


 > 
 > Whether we make a "release" of the system with the new build environment 
 > is a separate issue. I'd suggest we make a minor 'point' release just so 
 > everyone can get resynchronized at this point, but if others feel that it 
 > would just confuse users, I could live with that.
 > 
 > > Changing the build system is some internal reorgainzation issue and that's
 > > nothing the user cares about.
 > 
 > Yes, that's why I want to get it done now -- the monolithic build is going 
 > to make all future development harder for me (at least) and harder to get 
 > distributed (at least for Debian).  The sooner we get it done, the faster 
 > things can happen in the future.
 > 

This doesn't seem to be a universally shared position. 
To get as much as possible on the same page I'd like to 
see the issues individual groups have being addressed - 
with the outcome not anticipated beforehand.

Egbert.