Next focus: PROCESS

[deadalnix]

On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 21:30:44 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/19/12 4:23 PM, foobar wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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)