Next focus: PROCESS
deadalnix
deadalnix at gmail.com
Wed Dec 19 12:51:56 PST 2012
On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 19:56:47 UTC, Rob T wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 19:26:48 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 19:01:56 UTC, Andrei
>> Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> I was hoping for more consensus to build in this thread.
>>> Right now it seems there's still quite a bit of controversy
>>> about what the best way to go is.
>>>
>>
>> I'm afraid a lot of discussions we see right now are plain
>> useless because overengineered. This shouldn't prevent us from
>> switching some more basics things, like the git workflow and
>> see how it work.
>>
>> This process need some actual practical use for the reflection
>> to go forward, as it has gone way too far in the stratosphere.
>
> Yes, overengineering is pointless, and doing something basic is
> better than doing nothing at all, and knowing what will work
> and what won't and what the challenges are means that we have
> to try something out or we'll never learn anything.
>
> There are some main points that I think everyone agrees with
> that could be implemented immediately.
>
> Do we all agree that MASTER becomes the "Dev" branch?
>
Yes
> Do we all agree that we need a "testing" (aka staging) branch?
>
Yes
> Do we all agree that we need a "stable" branch?
>
No. Stable isn't a boolean criteria. You'll find different degree
of stability going from not so stable (dev version) to very
stable (dead project).
The wiki already mention a process with a branch per version of
the software.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list