Re: What's appropriate for the default branch?

[Torsten]

On 28.11.2013 19:13, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 11/26/2013 01:20 AM, Rik wrote:
> 
>> If you have changesets for the 3.8 release they should now
>> be applied to the stable branch.  The default branch is now for
>> development
>> on the 4.0 release.
> 
> What's appropriate for the default branch now?
> 
> If our focus for 4.0 is a solid GUI, then I think we should focus on
> that alone and leave other changes until later.  But that means that
> we don't really have a good place for people to push changes for new
> features that are not focused on the GUI or classdef.
> 
> I also don't think that we should be doing all the work for 4.0 on the
> stable branch.  We may have to break binary compatibility when making
> some of the 4.0 changes and it may take more than a few months for 4.0
> to be ready.  But we should try to ensure that we are able to release
> 3.8.N at any time without breaking binary compatibility with previous
> 3.8 releases.
> 
> Would it make sense to create an intermediate branch that is intended
> for the work on the 4.0 release?  Then we could leave default open for
> any other kinds of possibly risky changes.  If we go this route, I
> would merge classdef to default.
> 
> Then we would have:
> 
>   stable:  3.8.x series
> 
>   gui:     Future 4.0.x series with stable GUI.  Most work focuses on
>            this branch until 4.0 is released.
> 
>   default: The usual (almost) anything goes branch.  Merge classdef
>            here and close the classdef branch.  The big new feature
>            for a future 4.x release (or maybe 5.0) would be classdef
>            support.

Does this mean that improvements or bug fixes for the gui are not
included in future 3.8.x releases?

Torsten