Next focus: PROCESS

[Jesse Phillips]

On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 23:05:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

> master : used as a base for development. New feature are merged 
> here.
> staging : used to provide a view of what the next version will 
> look like. Regular snapshot of that branch are made so public 
> can use the last features.
> version : used to contain a version that will have a support 
> for an extended period of time.

I do not see how development in master is moved to staging based 
on this description. I'll try and be more specific.

I realize you don't like features, but we need to talk about 
Phobos additions, @property mechanics, and other highly 
disruptive bugs. I'll call it the major-change.

The major-change branch is generally developed to completion and 
may just be a pull requests from developer342's master.

 From the sound of it this request is pulled into master. We 
continue to pull many of these changes in. How do we decide they 
should be placed into staging, when we pull them into master?. If 
we wait for some 'magic time' how do we pull it into staging, 
does that mean we now cherry pick commits of master?

Another issue is it sounds like master becomes a "phantom" 
branch. At no point in time would master resemble what is 
released. I see this as a problem because it is the branch people 
are developing off of, it means nothing to test in master as 
staging has the actual state that will be released.