Calling Developers and CVS Gurus
haski at sezampro.yu
Tue Sep 16 07:29:32 PDT 2003
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:01:06AM -0500, James Robertson wrote:
> I am working on getting the code for nALFS 1.1.7 into the CVS
> repository on Belgarath (our main box).
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~neven/nALFS-cvs.tar.bz2, 1.1.7 is
> If you did not see it, I sent a different message about Bugzilla's
> change. One of the things I think is needed is to have named people
> be component "owners" in the system. Right now the owner and QA
> contact of the product and all the components is the alfs-discuss
> list. I was thinking that we need a developer that is the
> overseerer so to speak on a component of the application. Thoughts
> on this? We could, of course, do what we do on the book and let
> known editors grab bugs they want to work on.
That last thing sounds good. Not necessarily _known_ coders, just the
ones who think they can do it. :)
> The CVS add is simple, but the rest is harder. As I noticed on the
> lfs-dev list a little bit ago, we need to make sure that all of our
> ducks are in a row before we go hog wild with tags and brances. I
> was thinking of this:
> + - 1.1 Branch and 1.1.7 tag for the current version.
> + - 1.2 Branch - where we are actively developing.
> Is this sound? Or is HEAD where we are actively developing and when we
> release 1.2.0, we create a branch?
Actually, you don't create a branch unless you need it. You just tag
a release, so you can later reference it. The development should
occur on the main trunk. Branching could be used to fix some major
bug in the release and then provide a patch for it, for those that
don't won't to use the latest, development version.
Well, that's how I see it anyway. I wouldn't worry about this much.
> Looks like we need another roadmap! Neven, can you help here? I know
> you have been busy lately, but some leadership/organizational help would
> be great. Especially as seeing how as this implementation is your baby.
> With the nALFS app, I was thinking that it would probably be better to
> have a smaller group with CVS ci rights (component owners? Neven?) to
> help manage the code with a review before commit.
Of course. I'd still prefer to get patches sent to me, so I can check
them and then commit them. When someone starts sending a lot of good
ones he could be given the ci access, naturally. And as we all know,
those people already exist. :) So right from the start, we would have
a few ones that could commit.
More information about the alfs-discuss