Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: Meaning of oacs-4-6

Collapse
2: Re: Meaning of oacs-4-6 (response to 1)
Posted by Jeff Davis on 03/06/03 10:18 AM
Tilman, Lars and don both committed a bunch of stuff yesterday and I am not surprised there are a few problems. I don't think it's realistic to think the HEAD or the HEAD of a branch will always work. HEAD of anything is definitely not a "stable version". We do have a tag on 4.6 for the latest work excluding their commits which is oacs-4-6-1-b2 but it is a symbolic tag rather than a branch.

If I were you I would revert to that tag and wait until those problems have been fixed.

Also regarding working on head v. on 4.6 I think it is a *lot* easier to merge from 4.6 to HEAD than the other way around so for most things it would be better to do the work on 4.6 and merge forward.

Collapse
3: Re: Meaning of oacs-4-6 (response to 2)
Posted by Jeff Davis on 03/06/03 11:36 AM
We had an exchange on irc about this.

The bit I think deserves more discussion is:

I think it's pretty important to think about the implied contract for people using checkouts and I think the disadvantages of try to insure the HEAD of a branch under relatively active development is stable is something we can't do. We should probably formalize it and post it somewhere. I think it would go something like: "HEAD: no gaurantees at all that it will install work or be upgradable, oacs-4-6: best efforts at installability, no upgradability gaurantee, beta tags: gauranteed installability no gaurantee of upgradability, release: gauranteed installability/upgradability.
Although hopefully the discussion won't be about my utter inability to spell either upgradeability or guarantee. At least I am consistently wrong.