Next focus: PROCESS

[H. S. Teoh]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 04:48:22PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/19/12 4:40 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> >On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 21:30:44 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>On 12/19/12 4:23 PM, foobar wrote:
[...]
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>I agree with one "stable" branch.
> >>
> >
> >This does conflict with the requirement you gave before about being
> >able to support anything, as previous stable version cannot be
> >revised.
> >
> >Or does stable here mean supported ? (which means we still have
> >branch per version, but only one version is supported)
> 
> Walter needs to chime in about that. One possibility is to continue
> using tags for marking releases, and then branch for the few
> important releases that we want to patch.
[...]

This is a good idea, to avoid cluttering the git repo with branches.
(But then again, branches in git are cheap so I don't think this is
really that big of a deal.)


T

-- 
Just because you survived after you did it, doesn't mean it wasn't stupid!