> +1 As cool as the new branch is, this is the first compelling reason > I've seen to go to my boss and say we need to switch to it now. > > Thanks Rich!
Speaking of which... I know the new branch is where Rich publishes his current work. Does anyone (Rich included!) have any opinion on whether it's reasonable to do 'mainstream' development against new (rather than working against master and occasionally testing against new)? I currently work against master, but I keep my checkout up-to-date. Imaginary counter-points would be "bugs that get fixed on master don't get merged into new", "it's really only for experimentation", "it's often broken for days at a time", "things behave differently to master", "functions keep changing their names", "building a jar doesn't work", etc. I ask because I maintain a bunch of libraries and do quite a lot of new development, and so I see a possible win/win: I get to enjoy new improvements, but I also act as a real-world-code tester for the community. That only applies, though, if new has a modicum of stability and reliability. -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
