Rich Adamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You should be far more disturbed with their comment about "stable"
> then with the rest of their email. Its a known fact that a substantial
> number of 'fixes' have been made to Head and not to Stable, and
> that's backed by a fair number of developers including Mark.
>
When you have two branches: one marked "stable" and one seen as
"development", organisations will automatically gravitate toward the
"stable" version.
There are only two ways to remove that choice:
1. Drop the "stable" branch and make the CVS head the only
available option.
2. Kind of obvious, but perhaps release a new stable version.
What are the showstoppers for option 2? Are we waiting until the
open bug count reaches zero? We will be waiting forever in that
case - no matter how much effort is put in.
I think that the current CVS should be branched right now, and
released as the new 1.0 stable - or perhaps 1.1, to avoid confusion
with the premature 1.0 release. New features can be worked into the
CVS head and the remaining bugs can be fixed in both branches. Once
the new features start to interfere with backport efforts, a new branch
can be created. The problem with the old "1.0 stable" was that it was
largely unmaintained (i.e. the Debian definition of "stable").
--
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/
_/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
