On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:43:40 -0700, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote:
On 2012-07-13 00:24, Adam Wilson wrote:
For example:
2.0.60 is the current HEAD. Bug fixes Only.
2.1.60 is the new feature branch. It is a GitHub fork of the current
DMD-HEAD owned by the same org as current DMD-HEAD. This way Walter can
work against both simultaneously.
We could have rolled the Object const change in 2.1.60, found out we
didn't like them but instead of being FORCED to revert it to keep 2.060
stable, we could have continued developing and improving the model or
working on the problem from a completely different angle, WITHOUT
affecting the release of 2.0.60.
We could keep all the COFF work in the DMD 2.1 branch without affecting
DMD 2.0 branch and having nearly as many breakages as we currently do in
HEAD. Most recently, the ElfObj breakage. Roll that work into 2.1.60 and
if it breaks well, you KNEW you were on the development branch, what's
your problem?
The stable/development branch model exists for a reason, it works, well.
We don't have to keep rediscovering the models that worked successfully
for other teams the hard way. If we proactively seek best practices, we
can proactively avoid a huge amount of pain.
Yeah, I still don't understand why we don't do this. Is Walter against
this? Anyone else?
I hope Walter isn't against this, because I'm not seeing much community
disagreement with this...
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
