On 12/19/12 4:23 PM, foobar wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 20:51:57 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 19:56:47 UTC, Rob T wrote:
Do we all agree that we need a "stable" branch?
No. Stable isn't a boolean criteria. You'll find different degree of
stability going from not so stable (dev version) to very stable (dead
project).
The wiki already mention a process with a branch per version of the
software.
Let's generalize this point for the sake of reaching consensus - we need
_at least one_ "stable" branch which is separate from "staging". We are
still conflicted as to what should be the maximum amount. For the
record, I'm with the camp advocating at most a fixed amount countable on
one hand. That's an O(1) with a very small constant as opposed to the
O(n) suggestion by Andrei. I hope Andrei appreciates the order of
efficiency here.
I agree with one "stable" branch.
Andrei
