IcedTea6 releases

[Andrew Haley]

Lillian Angel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> 2009/2/23 Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com>:

>>> Once the
>>> release is done, further bug fixes may be needed against the same
>>> release, so a release tree should never be re-used.
>>
>> Reusing the same release tree seemed very strange to me as well.  I
>> have the vain hope that having a release tree might mean we can have
>> an upstream backport of important things like security fixes.  Hence,
>> I was thinking along the lines of something like releases/icedtea6/x
>> trees e.g. releases/icedtea6/1.4.1.
> 
> I agree with this. Having a separate release tree for every release. It
> could initially be created as an exact copy of the main tree (or some
> tagged version), and appropriate patches could be applied or added. For
> minor releases, the differences between the main tree and the release
> tree could be significant. I think for major releases, the main tree
> should always be tagged as 1.x once the release tree is created.
> 
> I may be completely off target. But what are everyone's thoughts on
> tagging the main tree after a release?

It's just standard practice: tag the trunk with the name of the branch,
make a copy from the tag, call that the branch.

In gcc we do this:

   tag gcc-foo-branchpoint
   cp gcc-foo-branchpoint -> gcc-foo-branch

So you can do

   diff gcc-foo-branchpoint gcc-foo-branch

to see what was changed on the branch, etc.

Andrew.