On 12/19/12 4:40 PM, deadalnix wrote:
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)
Walter needs to chime in about that. One possibility is to continue
using tags for marking releases, and then branch for the few important
releases that we want to patch.
Andrei
