On 4/25/10 8:42 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com
<mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com>> wrote:
That sounds good to me too.
This doesn't sound good to me. It doesn't help anything, except Mark's
paranoia about stable getting features.
I'm up for the other way as well - but yeah, both make me feel fuzzy.
Could you elaborate on "it doesn't help anything"? That's an interesting
argument, but not very persuasive :) "It doesn't help anything other
than easing Mark's paranoia" :)
And it hinders development and
community by creating a fake trunk.
Developing on multiple branches in general, hinders development - but
personally, I didn't find the flex branch to be hindered that badly. I'm
not too worried about the hinderence of committing to both branches at
the same time either - when it makes sense its going to be fairly quick
- merging *everything* from trunk to flex didn't really take that long.
Many things will be much less work than the old system.
"fake trunk" depends on your definition of trunk. It has its downsides
in comparison to keeping trunk extremely synced to stable, but it has
its upsides as well. Patching to both branches makes me feel just as
fuzzy as merging occasionally - take your pick.
We could do the opposite instead, and merge a bunch of changes at once
to stable, and not have a fake trunk like we did with flex.
Flex wasn't a fake trunk - it was a branch. Trunk was trunk. Its not an
uncommon way to develop?
In my opinion, the way we did the Flex branch was very successful. So
its easy to agree with using some of that formula.
--
Robert Muir
rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com>
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
