Why not merge the diverged branch back into stable?

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Tobias Doerffel <tobias.doerffel@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Paul,

2012/12/18 Paul Giblock <drfaygo@gmail.com>:
> What is the current state of stable vs master?  I notice that they have
> diverged tremendously over the last few years.  It seems some changes from
> master are occasionally cherry-picked to stable?  What branch should I or
> other people use for new development.  It seems like anything substantial
> based off of master would be a huge pain to port to stable.

Yes, I've been planning to announce my current plans about the
diverged branches for quite a while now.. As the master branch is in
quite an unstable state and especially is missing lots of bug fixes
from stable branch (probably several hundred commits), I'd like fork a
new stable branch from the current stable branch and "backport" the
cool stuff from the master branch. This way we remain stable and have
the possibility to pull in fixes from the stable branch with simple
merges (instead of cherry picking everything manually) during the
development of stable-1.0. Once all cool stuff from master has been
pulled in, we can discard that master branch.

So basically for the time being new features should be developed in
branches derived from the current stable branch.

My plan is to set up a stable-1.0 branch and merge the revised
undo/redo branch (and finish/stabilize it) and pull in features such
as automation recording, FX mixer sends and the new setup dialog
(possibly some more stuff). The resources framework should go into a
later stable branch (maybe stable-2.0) as this will introduce massive

Hope that helps! :-)

Best regards


LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial
Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support
Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services
Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers
LMMS-devel mailing list

Jonathan Aquilina