fofredux-devel

[Fofredux-devel] Fwd: [fofr] feed refactor complete

[Andrew T. (nilspace) <nil...@us...>]

Kevin has finished the feed refactoring for 0.2. I think we should all
test and fix any *major* bugs - and call this the 0.2 release.

Also, Kevin, I think as we move forward, bug fixes should happen on
the main CVS trunk, correct? If we have to go back and fix the 0.2
release, or anything, then we will branch it. But 0.2.1, etc will come
off of HEAD. Then eventually there will be a 0.3 release (and possible
branch) from HEAD.


Andy

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kevin <ke...@dr...>
Date: Dec 17, 2005 12:15 PM
Subject: [fofr] feed refactor complete
To: Andrew Turner <ajt...@hi...>


I'm satisfied the changes I've made are pretty well stable.  I've merged
them back into HEAD.

If there are no more features to add, a release 0.2 branch should be
created for bugfixes.  With a name like this:  REL_0_2-branch.

Then, release tags on this branch can be like this:

REL_0_2_0_final =3D  v0.2.0
REL_0_2_1_final =3D  v0.2.1
REL_0_2_2_final =3D  v0.2.2

Putting the 'final' on there will help avoid confusion if we need to put
other identifiers for a particular version number.  For instance, if we
need to have a beta or "release candidate" release.
REL_0_2_0_beta1
REL_0_2_0_rc2

I don't see using this much,  probably just for the first release on a
release branch.



--
Andrew Turner
ajt...@hi...        42.4266N x 83.4931W
http://highearthorbit.com              Northville, Michigan, USA

Re: [Fofredux-devel] Fwd: [fofr] feed refactor complete

[Kevin <ke...@dr...>]

Andrew Turner (nilspace) wrote:

>Kevin has finished the feed refactoring for 0.2. I think we should all
>test and fix any *major* bugs - and call this the 0.2 release.
>
>Also, Kevin, I think as we move forward, bug fixes should happen on
>the main CVS trunk, correct? If we have to go back and fix the 0.2
>release, or anything, then we will branch it. But 0.2.1, etc will come
>off of HEAD. Then eventually there will be a 0.3 release (and possible
>branch) from HEAD.
>
>  
>
I like the idea of branching significant releases. (0.2, 0.3, dare I say 
1.0 )  It could also be called a stable branch.  If you need to fix a 
bug in a release, then commit the change to the release/stable branch, 
tag a new version number, ( 0.2.1, 0.2.2, etc)  then merge the changes 
onto HEAD.  This will help enforce the rule that only bugfixes go onto 
the stable branch, no features.

Is this overkill for such a small project, perhaps.  I think it's a good 
practice, thought.

On another note, I tried an FoF upgrade earlier today.  It seemed to 
work fine.  I had to change the feed and item table names in config.php 
to match the existing FoF table names.  Otherwise, FoFr doesn't see the 
existing tables and thinks it's a fresh install.  Is that what we expect 
users to do?

-Kevin