I think this sort of discussion is exactly what I was thinking of when I asked in my initial working group paper (Christian, please copy to Bernd and Oliver, and explain the background - if you haven't already), when I asked something like:
What is the current status of BOINC? Is it a computer science experiment, or is it mature scientific infrastructure? To me, as a relative outsider and not a technical expert at your levels, it feels as if "throw everything into master and see if it floats" is the experimentalist's answer. I hope I'm not distorting your words too much if I suggest that the 'mature infrastructure' approach - if it is to survive the next 15 years - needs pre-release development branches for each of client, server, and API, all with their own distinct version control; and a separate branch for major direction changes like the NSF-funded TBD (which I suspect - though it wasn't made explicit at the time of the commit - is what really sparked this thread off). On Thursday, 20 July 2017, 16:12, Oliver Bock <oliver.b...@aei.mpg.de> wrote: On 20/07/17 11:11 , Oliver Bock wrote: > If you don't adapt and progress it > can only get worse, in particular from the point of view of newly > interested scientists and contributors. Just in case this came across in an offending way: the "you" wasn't meant personally, it was meant as in "one" or referring to BOINC as a project. Sorry if I phrased this ambiguously in my non-native tongue. Oliver _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu https://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address. _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu https://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.