D versionning

[Adam Wilson]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:43:40 -0700, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:

> On 2012-07-13 00:24, Adam Wilson wrote:
>
>> For example:
>> 2.0.60 is the current HEAD. Bug fixes Only.
>> 2.1.60 is the new feature branch. It is a GitHub fork of the current
>> DMD-HEAD owned by the same org as current DMD-HEAD. This way Walter can
>> work against both simultaneously.
>>
>> We could have rolled the Object const change in 2.1.60, found out we
>> didn't like them but instead of being FORCED to revert it to keep 2.060
>> stable, we could have continued developing and improving the model or
>> working on the problem from a completely different angle, WITHOUT
>> affecting the release of 2.0.60.
>>
>> We could keep all the COFF work in the DMD 2.1 branch without affecting
>> DMD 2.0 branch and having nearly as many breakages as we currently do in
>> HEAD. Most recently, the ElfObj breakage. Roll that work into 2.1.60 and
>> if it breaks well, you KNEW you were on the development branch, what's
>> your problem?
>>
>> The stable/development branch model exists for a reason, it works, well.
>> We don't have to keep rediscovering the models that worked successfully
>> for other teams the hard way. If we proactively seek best practices, we
>> can proactively avoid a huge amount of pain.
>
> Yeah, I still don't understand why we don't do this. Is Walter against  
> this? Anyone else?

I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much community  
disagreement with this...

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/