Re: Question: next, master and pu branches

> I think what you are looking for is how my 'maint' and 'master'
> branches are maintained; 'maint' corresponds to your "stable
> release" while 'master' corresponds to your "develment branch".
>
> When a stable release is cut, 'maint' is forked from there.
>
> Truly obvious corrections will be applied on top of the tip of
> 'maint' directly, while if there are any doubt about a proposed
> change I might fork a topic off of the tip of 'maint' and cook
> the fix for a while until I finally merge it to 'maint'.  This
> way, 'maint' will be "bugfix only since the last release".
>
> The tip of 'maint' will be merged into 'master', from time to
> time, to make sure that all fixes will be in 'master'.
>
> When it is time for a new release to be cut, I'd make sure that
> the tip of 'maint' is merged into 'master' (it usually is) and
> then the tip of the 'master' is tagged to be released.  After a
> release is made, I could have two maintenance branches (one that
> continues on top of the old codebase, another that fixes the new
> release).  A fix that can apply to both codebases will be
> applied to the maintenance branch for the old release and then
> its tip can be pulled into the maintenance branch for the new
> release and then its tip can further be merged into the
> development branch.
>
> At some point, the codebases for the older release and the
> current release become diverged enough that merging could become
> inpractical (the same bug may need different fix if the
> infrastracture has become different); you would need to bite the
> bullet and fix it twice (i.e. differently).