Mikhail Fursov wrote:
On 10/31/06, *Geir Magnusson Jr.* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
I guess that if we could get 5.0 complete, we'd could *then* branch for
6, but I don't think we'd want to serialize like that.
I understand the dilemma. If we agree to have 1 stable, 1 'future' and N
suspended (old) branches as a rule we finally will tune our process and
will have almost no overhead to propagate changes from one branch to
another. The hell is when you do not have any stable schema and create
long living branches without reasons.
The success of preprocessor's idea is also heavily depends how will we
use it.
For example, what about "old versions"? Should we someday move the code
into separate branch or collect N-years old versions in the same source?
Yes, I assume that we'd branch and park 5 at some point, putting it into
maintenance, and then just if there is a bug, deal with them on case by
case back into main tree.
But that's just version of SE mainline. There also is The Logging Topic
That Will Not Die, as well as capabilities and profiles for ME (if
someone wanted to do so), but I know almost zero about how that works in
real life.
geir
--
Mikhail Fursov
