On Nov 10, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
> > Hi folks, > > I haven't been bitten by the "do not use" revisions, R1089 onward, but > it seems that others have. > > I'm just curious why the team decided not to use a branch for these > breaking changes, and merging back with trunk once the breakage was > finished? For one, there's no 'team' for the trunk, just me. Branches and merging are a pain, and if there's no reason for them other than to keep head clean, I don't buy it, i.e. there aren't 2 paths. > > Like many open-source projects, Clojure seems to have a HEAD culture > rather than a Release culture, so intentionally breaking HEAD should > be taboo, IMHO. > I agree in general, and that is what I usually try to do. But the interim commits are clearly labeled as such. I think it's just good habits to read the commit messages before you pull. Why grab HEAD if it doesn't fix a bug or add a feature you need? People that want to track SVN closely should definitely utilize the IRC channel. If I'm not there, there is usually someone who can provide guidance on revisions etc, and immediate get-out-of-trouble support. Anyone using SVN needs to be able to read the commit messages and back out to a prior revision - even with the best of intentions, HEAD may be (unintentionally) broken. In any case, this set of breaking changes is the work due to precede a release 1.0, and a subsequent 'release-oriented' view of the world, with multiple real paths, and merging of fixes into release branches etc. Rich --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
