tracking projects via CVS
First, a big thanks to Derek and other contributors for the new release system. Definitely a big step forward. However, if I understand correctly, it does mean I have to change my way of tracking projects and keeping my site up-to-date. I'm running a site on 4.7 and have been in the habit of watching the CVS commit feeds for core and certain contrib projects for commits to the DRUPAL-4-7 branch. I've been doing regular CVS updates to a DRUPAL-4-7 checkout to keep in sync with the latest stable versions of everything. If I understand correctly, this branch can no longer be assumed to be stable, correct? For example, I believe there was a 1.0 release of the Views module and now the 4.7 branch is seeing a lot of commits on it's way toward 1.1. Is that still considered a stable branch? How do I know what CVS tag to track for a stable branch? Or Is the convention going to be different for each contrib author? Thanks, Ray
On Nov 14, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Ray Zimmerman wrote:
If I understand correctly, this branch can no longer be assumed to be stable, correct?
on the contrary, you can more safely assume it's stable, since there's *finally* the option for that module's maintainer to make a DRUPAL-4-7--2 branch for new features that are still compatible with 4.7.x core.
For example, I believe there was a 1.0 release of the Views module and now the 4.7 branch is seeing a lot of commits on it's way toward 1.1. Is that still considered a stable branch?
a) if you want something *stable*, use an official release (4.7.x-1.0) not whatever happens to be in the end of a branch in CVS. b) unless merlin is being irresponsible, all those changes in the DRUPAL-4-7 branch are bug fixes to the 1.0 release, on the way to another stable 1.1 release. c) if he was really making drastic changes, or adding new features, he should be using a different branch (DRUPAL-4-7--2 or HEAD, see below), and releasing those as 4.7.x-2.* (assuming they're still compatible with 4.7.x core).
How do I know what CVS tag to track for a stable branch? Or Is the convention going to be different for each contrib author?
ultimately, i can't force the maintainers to follow the guidelines i've documented, so yes, the last word is what it says on the project node, or via whatever other means the maintainer chooses to make their intentions know. but, if everyone plays by these rules: http://drupal.org/handbook/cvs/branches-and-tags/contributions http://drupal.org/handbook/cvs/releases then DRUPAL-4-7 should always be stable, and new features either happen in HEAD or in DRUPAL-4-7--2 depending on the maintainer's approach to using HEAD: http://drupal.org/node/17570#HEAD hope that clarifies. webchick and i spent *A LOT* of time on these handbook pages, so please RTFM. ;) thanks, -derek
Ray Zimmerman wrote:
If I understand correctly, this branch can no longer be assumed to be stable, correct? For example, I believe there was a 1.0 release of the Views module and now the 4.7 branch is seeing a lot of commits on it's way toward 1.1. Is that still considered a stable branch? How do I know what CVS tag to track for a stable branch? Or Is the convention going to be different for each contrib author?
In this case, DRUPAL-4-7 is stable except to the point where it turns out a fix I checked in is broken (which it turns out today that one *was*). DRUPAL-4-7 will by rule pretty much always be a little less stable than an actual release, since one can never be SURE that I didn't check in something that I missed a ramification of, especially in a project that has as many tendrils into other pieces as Views. That said, I'm not doing major development in that branch. When I do the major development, it'll be in DRUPAL-5--2. I don't know that I'll do Views 2 for 4.7. That's a lot of work.
participants (3)
-
Derek Wright -
Earl Miles -
Ray Zimmerman