[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Paparazzi-devel] On the state of the master, dev and 4.0_beta branc

From: Felix Ruess
Subject: Re: [Paparazzi-devel] On the state of the master, dev and 4.0_beta branches
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:40:45 +0200

Hi again,

just a quick update, the dev branch is back, taking it's rightful place ;-)

As I wrote before, because some people were relying on the dev branch beeing fairly stable (in terms of needed configuration changes) we only merged some things into 4.0_beta but not dev...
To ease development and testing we decided to actually use dev as the proper dev branch again. So it now has all the changes of 4.0_beta plus a few more things currently beeing tested.

Cheers, Felix

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Felix Ruess <address@hidden> wrote:

understandably there has been some confusion about the current state of master, dev and 4.0_beta.

So here is how I think it is supposed to be like (after we actually made a proper stable release):
  • Master will always contain the latest stable release + minor bugfixes.
    Pull requests for master will only be accepted if they are bugfixes and don't add/break anything else.
  • Dev contains the latest and greatest and is where development happens.
    So if you plan to add a new feature please do that in a feature branch based on the dev branch.
  • If enough new features/major fixes have accumulated we'll make a new release_beta branch where it can be tested and stabilized.
    When ready we release by merging into master (and adding a tag, providing tarballs, doing a proper changelog, etc...)

At the moment we have a bit of an awkward situation:
So which branch to choose?
For those of you who are happy with master and don't depend on any fixes/features in dev, I would recommend to stay on master until the release.
Most people with at least a little bit of experience I would actually recommend to use and test the 4.0_beta branch as you will have to update your configuration at some point anyway and it would be really great to have a wider test base!

Cheers, Felix

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]