On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 05:16:02PM -0300, bulia byak wrote: Has that fix been copied to the 0.39 branch? Should it be? More generally, how important is it to backport things to stable release branch at the cost of spending time on HEAD ? I don't see this fix mentioned in the changelog. (Bulia's 2004-06-02 looks relevant, but configure.in's CVS log suggests 0.39 was released in July.) pjrm.

On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 22:05, bulia byak wrote: Yes, creating a branch is part of our release process; in this case the branch name is RELEASE_0_39_BRANCH. If someone would like to backport some fixes and things for a potential 0.39.1 release, they'd basically just need to check out the RELEASE_0_39_BRANCH, then commit the fixes normally on that branch. Commits from that working copy will follow the "front" of that branch just as they do the HEAD branch. Once we'd agreed an interim release was ready, it's just a matter of doing the release process again -- update files with the right version, and tag the revisions as RELEASE_0_39_1 (that's just a plain tag; we shouldn't re-create the _BRANCH). -mental

On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 20:38, bulia byak wrote: I agree with Bulia on this. I think that it is much better to work ahead. But, what I am curious about is whether this will become the interface between open source and the commercial world. That is kinda what is happening with the Linux kernel, Linus is maintaining the development push ahead version -- and then letting the distros pull those patches into whatever version they like. If people were using Inkscape in a commercial environment, I could see some of them willing to pay to get all the fixes in a stable branch. I'm sure other projects are the same. It'll be interesting if someone will make a desktop distro with extended updates and support for all the applications, or if this will fall on smaller, more specific companies. --Ted