[GNC-dev] Request of keeping a 2.6 branch still alive (Re: branch-2.6)
christian at cstimming.de
Sat Jun 2 17:05:25 EDT 2018
Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2018, 08:16:35 schrieb John Ralls:
> >> But why do we keep a "gnucash" repo at all and not only everyone's
> >> personal
> >> repository? Of course there is some sort of project belonging. My
> >> proposal
> >> is to still keep the 2.6 branch a little bit more alive, and one or two
> >> maintenance releases might be spun off from there. I'd be the one who
> >> does
> >> the housekeeping there, as discussed already.
> > Considering you do offer to take care of that 2.6 branch I can live with
> > having one. If John disagrees you may need to make it a core policy
> > decision request and check for a broader opinion there.
> I disagree for the user and contributor confusion reasons already stated,
> because I think that the old Windows build system should be retired, and
> because I think Christian has forgotten how much work goes into support and
> won’t have time to devote to it.
> If Christian wants to fork GnuCash to maintain 2.6.x, he’s free to do so,
> but it should be clear to all that it’s Christian’s fork and not “Official"
> GnuCash. It’s much clearer and cleaner if the fork lives in Christian’s own
> public repository with its own bug tracker and its own support mailing
> list. It’s 10 minutes work to set all of that up on Github, so what’s the
> point of keeping it in the Github repository?
*sigh* Of course there is already a private fork, just as everyone else around
here is free to privately fork anything that he/she wants.
However, that's not the point of our common project gnucash. "Official", as
you call it.
Talking of core policy decision: Ultimately the decision is about whether
there might be another 2.6.x release after the 2.6.20 in April, which in turn
is the reason for the existence of any 2.6 branch. John, it seems you decided
that there should not be any such release anymore under any circumstances. Had
this been a decision following our decision process,
, I would have been the voice that raises a objection to that decision.
>From my point of view, April isn't too far away and there might indeed be a
2.6.21 with some bugfixes. This is not a long-term commitment, just for maybe
another few months after the 2.6.20 release. How big is the risk in accepting
this objection and allow a potential 2.6.21 release to show up in the near
future? I'm surprised to see that prohibited from your side to begin with.
More information about the gnucash-devel