> And, it's not the committer's job to port each little commit to stable > over to the unstable branch. Instead, we periodically re-sync stable > --> unstable, like we did with the long-lived flex branch. > > So, then, little would change on how stable is developed, today. And > stable would still be the primary source line for development.
-1 And now there's no place I can go for latest-and-greatest. Some features in stable, other features in unstable - do I have to merge locally if I need all of them? If we have some new flex-calibre developments, they warrant their own branch, as they are totally unusable whilst in the works. The shining point of unstable is not that you can shove some flexy stuff there. It's that you can tweak APIs without regard to backwards compat, and have generally cleaner codebase. -- Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (ear...@gmail.com) Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423 ICQ: 104465785 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
