On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:26:50 +0100 (CET) [email protected] wrote: > I think we don't really have the resources to maintain 2 or 3 > branches. >
What if there were no -stable; -maintenance might only be used [in critical situations] to avoid changing a -release after it has been packaged and deployed. (So a user can distinguish between 0.31-release and 0.31-release-P1 (Patch 1)). > I far prefer to have the development tree always in good shape [snip] > and be able to create a release whenever we want. > Without a Release Candidate, development on -current must stop while the -release is tested and packaged (and the packages are tested). Hmm, can either of these methodologies tolerate non-trivial development? For example, what if a developer(s) wished to extend GHDL such that complex data structures could be traced? [HDF5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_Data_Format [HDF Group]: http://www.hdfgroup.org/HDF5/ Something like that (which, by the way, would have many interesting attributes) might need a -research branch. Hmm, once the engineering process is designed, scripted and documented, (assuming it's comprehensible and convenient) I wonder what the actual administrative work-load would be like to maintain the project? >...(and we now have a not trivial testsuite)... Awesome! > If GHDL passes the test, it is in good shape. > > I also have my private test suite, and I will test GHDL on it. > private?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
