It's RC time? v6.5.5-rc3

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

I'm sorry I'm catching this mail so late.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 01:16:48PM +0200, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> Am 10.07.2013 03:56, schrieb Dmitrijs Ledkovs:
> > I thinking to:
> > * merge up a few github pull requests (the obvious ones)
> > * push what's currently in next to master.
> > * tag it and make v6.5.5-rc3
> >
> > It would be very nice to find & squash memory leak:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=670872
> >
> > I'm not sure I quite understand the difference between next & master branches.
> >
> > Anyone has a clue what's in "pu" branch? should it be merged into next/master?

I'm willing to help you as much as possible. Please, add me in cc so I
can respond faster. ,-)

> Hi Dmitrijs,
> 
> the pu branch contained experimental staff that might or might not be 
> merged at some point or that contained a feature that was useful for 
> some. I would not merge it.
>
> The master branch used to contain the latest release and the next branch 
> contained the stuff that would lead to the next release.

Right. "pu" stands for "proposed updates". This branch has topics
interesting enough to be tracked in the official repository but still not
reviewed or ready to get merged in the next branch which intends to be
the next master.

>                                                          But that is 
> only by convention and up to the project maintainer to decide how they 
> want to organize things.

Of course. ;-)

When I took the maintenance of offlineimap, I wanted to use a sane
workflow. As an occasional git contributor at that time, I decided to
apply the workflow used for the development of git itself. They know
what they are doing and I've seen it's working fine.

I would encourage you to read docs/doc-src/HACKING.rst which is a
documentation mostly taken from the git repository, too.

It's very nice to see developers proposing to release the next -rc. I
couldn't agree more it's time to go!

Thanks,

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht