On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 04:48:22PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > 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: [...] > >>>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. [...]
This is a good idea, to avoid cluttering the git repo with branches. (But then again, branches in git are cheap so I don't think this is really that big of a deal.) T -- Just because you survived after you did it, doesn't mean it wasn't stupid!