Re: A strawman proposal for X.org & XFree86.org

On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 09:00:31AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 05:58:49PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 01:48:19PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: 
> > > The most common solution to this problem seems to be maintaining seperate
> > > branches for seperate needs - Current vs Stable in many projects, 2.2 vs. 2.4 vs 2.5
> > > in the Linux kernel world, etc.  The proposed "standard" branch vs XFree86 branch
> > > is just another way of naming them, and a slightly different way of managing them.
> > > Perhaps simply doing stable, current, and maybe experimental branches is a simpler
> > > path.
> > 
> > Here are some differences between the usual solution and the
> > SSI-maintained branch:
> > 
> >  - In the usual model, maintainers of a module own that module on both
> >    stable and devel branches of said module.
> > 
> >  - Stable branches are bugfixes-only. Feature backports are evil,
> 
> What about bugfixes and new card support ?
> 

An exception for new drivers is probably pretty sane. It's a lot
easier if drivers are modularized, right, then you just make a
drivers-only release as often as you want...

Havoc