On Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 21:30:44 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
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.
This does conflict with the requirement you gave before about
being able to support anything, as previous stable version cannot
be revised.
Or does stable here mean supported ? (which means we still have
branch per version, but only one version is supported)
