Next focus: PROCESS

[H. S. Teoh]

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 02:03:56AM +0100, Rob T wrote:
[...]
> OK, but who has already tested it and how many people have been able
> to test it and comment on it? I was thinking more along the lines of
> how Debian does it, with a 4 staged release process: experimental =>
> unstable => testing (pre-release) => stable.

FYI, this is a misrepresentation of how Debian works. The actual process
is unstable => testing => stable. I.e., most new packages are uploaded
directly to unstable.

The experimental branch is for packages that aren't fully working, may
break your packaging system, contain untested code, etc.. Some stuff in
experimental is never migrated to unstable, because they're for, um,
experimenting with volatile or incomplete projects deemed unsuitable for
general use.

To apply the analogy to D development, this would be local git branches
where, say, Walter is toying around with incomplete code for a new
feature which may not even be compilable yet. The unstable branch would
be more-or-less complete, compilable code that haven't been extensively
tested yet (it more-or-less works, but may crash horribly, use at your
own risk, etc.). After a period of limited use, it gets merged into
testing, where a larger audience will begin using it. After it's been
proven in the field, then only it gets put into stable.

The experimental branch is really not needed as a formal part of the
process, since the developers can just use temporary local git branches
for that purpose without needing to push it to a public repository. So
really, the Debian process isn't really that different from what you
propose below:


> We could probably do away with a  common "experimental" branch,
> leaving 3 common branches.
[...]


T

-- 
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking.