Next focus: PROCESS

foobar foo at bar.com
Wed Dec 19 13:23:13 PST 2012


On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 20:51:57 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 19:56:47 UTC, Rob T wrote:
>
>> 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.

Let's generalize this point for the sake of reaching consensus - 
we need _at least one_ "stable" branch which is separate from 
"staging". We are still conflicted as to what should be the 
maximum amount. For the record, I'm with the camp advocating at 
most a fixed amount countable on one hand. That's an O(1) with a 
very small constant as opposed to the O(n) suggestion by Andrei. 
I hope Andrei appreciates the order of efficiency here.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list