Re: [TCLCORE] "Productive branches"

[Marc C. <cul...@gm...>]

>
> The discussion will be formalized in TIP 710 and everyone will have their
> say and more!


This is very important, and was not clear from the meeting "minutes".

Is there any harm in listing TCT participants in the meeting, by initials,
as part of the "minutes"
And many thanks to Harald for taking the time to write these "minutes".
Without them, people who don't participate, for whatever reason, would
really be in the dark.

- Marc

On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:28 AM <apn...@ya...> wrote:

> I think historically, two concurrent release trains have been maintained,
> for example 8.5 and 8.6. The earlier version gets updates less frequently
> than the later one and eventually gets EOL (8.5.19 I think was the last in
> 8.5 series). I would expect that to continue though personally I am all in
> favour of ditching older releases as soon as possible.
>
>
>
> More important, to your point about the online meetings. *These are very
> much not making decisions or setting any kind of policy.* They are more
> akin to, say, coffee time discussions about issues and ideas in a different
> era. They serve the purpose of being lightweight, interactive and provide
> immediate feedback which is more productive in some sense than written
> communication. That’s all. They are a starting point for formal, wider
> discussions, centred around TIPs that may arise from those meetings. For
> example, the development workflow that Harald described reflected what was
> discussed, not what has been decided. The discussion will be formalized in
> TIP 710 and everyone will have their say and more!
>
>
>
> Note the online meets are not TCT only, but open to all.
>
>
>
> Your point about timings is understood. Fortunately, there are
> participants around the world. Unfortunately, that means it is difficult to
> accommodate all time zones. The current time was moved from the original to
> maximize participation. Rotation is certainly a possibility, but the
> meeting has to be driven by someone in that time zone(s). Given the
> difficulty of scheduling an “all-hands” meet, there is no reason at all not
> to have multiple discussion groups with hopefully some overlap in
> participants.
>
>
>
> /Ashok
>
>
>
> *From:* Marc Culler <cul...@gm...>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2025 10:01 PM
> *To:* Tcl Core List <tcl...@li...>
> *Subject:* Re: [TCLCORE] "Productive branches"
>
>
>
> I would like to add that it does not make sense to me to even have both
> 9.0 and 9.1 as "productive branches".  In my opinion, when 9.1 is released
> 9.0 should cease to be productive.  I can't think of any reason to maintain
> 9.0 and 9.1 separately, much less 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, ad infinitum. While a
> project like Python may be able maintain 3 separate versions
> simultaneously, they also have a foundation with many paid employees.
>
>
>
> - Marc
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 10:14 AM Marc Culler <cul...@gm...> wrote:
>
> I don't understand this, but it looks very strange to me:
>
> First we have:
>
>
>
> - there are productive branches:
> core-8-6-branch, core-8-branch, core-9-0-branch, core-9-branch
> Missing branches are created when the first 9.1 feature is merged.
>
>
>
> Then we have:
>
>
>
> - if a branch is ready to merge, please ask for a merge permission it in
> the ticket including the proposed branches (e.g. 8.6, 9.0, 9.1).
>
>
>
> So that makes it look like we will have "productive branches" 9.0, 9.1.
> 9.2, 9,.3, 9.4, ....  which seems like a crazy idea to me.
>
>
>
> Also, I don't understand why TCT policies are being created outside of the
> official communication channel of the TCT, i.e. this list, at video
> conferences which occur at 4AM for people on the west coast of the US, with
> no discussion on this list.  I thought we had agreed not to do that.
>
>
>
> Also, I think it is important to provide a list of attendees at the video
> meeting, especially when they are claiming to set policy for the TCT.
>
>
>
> - Marc
>
>
>
>
>
>