unity-dev team mailing list archive

[Daniel van Vugt <daniel.van.vugt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To clarify:

lp:compiz/0.9.9 == raring release and updates
lp:compiz/0.9.10 == lp:compiz == S-series

Those are the only two real compiz branches. Please do not use 
"lp:compiz/raring" if it's still open. It was meant to be frozen or 
deleted on 3 April.


On 19/04/13 09:48, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
> Yes, the Compiz 0.9.9 series is for raring. The "raring" series was a
> mistake and is dead. Please stop pushing anything to lp:compiz/raring.
> It should have been frozen/deleted already.
>
>
> On 19/04/13 09:13, Sam Spilsbury wrote:
> > Hey Stephen,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Stephen M. Webb
> > <stephen.webb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > (resending, because I accidentally hit some key or something that
> > > sent a half-finished copy of this message)
> > >
> > > Well folks, it's past final freeze for Ubuntu 13.04.  I have branched
> > > all the projects in the Unity stack that have
> > > autolanding enabled, and as I write this the necessary magic is being
> > > invoked in the dark corners of a server farm
> > > somewhere so that everything will work the way it's supposed to.
> > Great news!.
> > > Compiz branching is a little harder to explain , but I'll try.
> > >
> > > The Compiz 0.9.10 series is the active development series.  The
> > > compiz 0.9.9 series is the Ubuntu development series
> > > (for R+1).  The compiz 'raring' series is the support series for
> > > SRUing fixes into Ubuntu 13.04.  Serious bugs may need
> > > to be pushed into *all three* branches.
> >
> > Hmm,
> >
> > That's confusing. I thought 0.9.9 was meant to be for raring and
> > 0.9.10 was meant to be what S was going to track? Didier, Daniel and I
> > had established that the "raring" branch wasn't really the right way
> > to do it, and the better way was to create a 0.9.9 "stable" branch
> > used for SRUs.
> >
> > Its also confusing because compiz doesn't need an "active" development
> > branch other than whatever is targeted towards going into S. If this
> > situation was the case, then 0.9.9 would effectively be the "active
> > development series" and there wouldn't be much point on working on
> > 0.9.10.
> >
> > The other thing I was going to ask to was this:
> >
> > This cycle compiz was branched into raring and 0.9.9 and then 0.9.9
> > and 0.9.10 a little earlier (February) than the rest of the stack.
> > That means that for any change that affects unity, the 0.9.10 "active
> > development" branch effectively had to have its changes limited to the
> > current unity release cycle at the time, and we couldn't make any API
> > changes or behavioral changes in compiz that would require any kind of
> > significant work in unity.
> >
> > For S, will we be able to set a date in stone when we will be able to
> > branch every PS project? That will mean that every project can
> > organize their release cycle around that.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > > --
> > > Stephen M. Webb  <stephen.webb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-dev
> > > Post to     : unity-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-dev
> > > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sam Spilsbury