[crossfire] CVS branches

[Mark Wedel]

  I'd be more concerned about this if there were lots of commits going on,
or there was a real desire to have a stable branch (eg, significant changes in 
main branch that may make it real unstable or incompatible, and thus you want to 
retain an older branch for compatibility reasons.

  But the fact is it does add more work - someone has to take patches from the 
head branch and put them in the stable branch and vice versa.

  The other issue is that generally, I'm not seeing so many commits that having 
people hold off a week would seem like much an issue.

  The simpler approach would not do real branches, just for me to keep a checked 
out copy and use that when making the release, and bring over changes manually 
that are critical in nature.  Problem with that is you can get the case where 
there is no version is CVS that directly corresponds to the released version. 
However, I suppose in that case, a branch for any relevant files could be made 
at that time.

  But what it really comes down to is that it is more work for the person doing 
the release (me), and I really don't want to make things any more complicated 
for myself - I'd much rather be dong stuff more worthwhile than syncing up branches.