Subject: CVS commit messages

From: Julian Gilbey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:48:42 +0000 (GMT)

A little question: if someone commits to the 2.2 branch of the CVS
tree, would the CVS log message to the workers list show this?  The
reason that I ask is that some of the commits seem to be correcting
stuff in 2.2, and if they're only being applied to the 2.3 track,
well, there's never going to be any chance of releasing a 2.2.1
version, is there?  8-)

   Julian

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [email-masked]
             Debian GNU/Linux Developer.  [email-masked]
       -*- Finger [email-masked] for my PGP public key. -*-
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 12:11:39 +0100

On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 11:48:42AM +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> tree, would the CVS log message to the workers list show this?

I don't know. Jason?

> The reason that I ask is that some of the commits seem to be correcting

There are no plans to put non-critical fixes into the 2.2.x branch.
To be honest I was a bit surprised that the branch was created in 
the first place since I do not think there are any fixes in there
(correct?).

Bye

Dominik
-- 
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, [email-masked]
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Matthias Clasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 13:22:03 +0100

> well, there's never going to be any chance of releasing a 2.2.1

I have committed some changes to the 2.2 branch, and the "FVWM CVS"
message on the list was like this:

CVSROOT:	/home/cvs/fvwm
Module name:	fvwm
Changes by:	clasen	99/02/28 12:49:21

Modified files:
	modules/FvwmEvent: Tag: branch-2_2 Makefile.am ChangeLog 
	libs           : Tag: branch-2_2 ModParse.c 
	fvwm           : Tag: branch-2_2 move.c builtins.c 
	.              : Tag: branch-2_2 ChangeLog 

Log message:
Fixes for bugs in GetArgument, InteractiveMove and WindowShade functions.
Make FvwmEvent use the functions from libs/ModParse.c rather than its
own.

Thus, the "Tag: branch-2_2" indicates that the commit went to the branch
instead of the main trunk.

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Clasen, 
Tel. 0761/203-5606
Email: [email-masked]
Mathematisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 09 Mar 1999 09:17:39 -0500

%% Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]> writes:

  >> tree, would the CVS log message to the workers list show this?

  dv> I don't know. Jason?

Matthias gave the right answer...

  >> well, there's never going to be any chance of releasing a 2.2.1

  dv> There are no plans to put non-critical fixes into the 2.2.x branch.
  dv> To be honest I was a bit surprised that the branch was created in 
  dv> the first place since I do not think there are any fixes in there
  dv> (correct?).

Actually, there have been a few serious, minor bugs (core dumps 'n
stuff) checked into the 2.2.1 branch.  We probably haven't been
super-vigilant in thinking about what changes to 2.3.x belong also in
2.2.x.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 09:28:30 -0500

> super-vigilant in thinking about what changes to 2.3.x belong also in

Besides that, the NEWS file doesn't reflect any 2.2 activity.

> -- 
>  Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Developmen

--
Dan Espen
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854                     Phone: (732) 699-5570
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 14:29:49 +0100

> super-vigilant in thinking about what changes to 2.3.x belong also in

Since we plan to have a much shorter release cycle now this isn't
very important. In my eyes only fixes for bugs that completely
break fvwm should go in the branch.

Bye

Dominik

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 09 Mar 1999 09:41:36 -0500

%% Dan Espen <[email-masked]> writes:

  de> Besides that, the NEWS file doesn't reflect any 2.2 activity.

That might be appropriate: if no new features are added on the 2.2
branch there shouldn't be any NEWS entries.

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 09:46:34 -0500

> branch there shouldn't be any NEWS entries.

I think you are correct, however, we do have to know whats in 2.2.x.
What else would cause us to release it?

The ChangeLogs are a pretty blunt tool for this purpose.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 09 Mar 1999 10:11:09 -0500

>> branch there shouldn't be any NEWS entries.

  de> I think you are correct, however, we do have to know whats in 2.2.x.
  de> What else would cause us to release it?

  de> The ChangeLogs are a pretty blunt tool for this purpose.

Well, typically that's what's used.  NEWS files for releases with no new
features say something like "Bug fixes." and leave it at that; the
ChangeLog contains the details.

I'm not adverse to having some other way of describing bugs fixed... I
just don't want to see everyone have to write 2 pages of information in
7 different files for each 3-line bug fix :).

Another option would be to leave it as-is, and have the person who
writes the 2.2.1 ANNOUNCE go through the ChangeLog and generate some
bugfix bullet items to go in the announcement.