On Thursday, January 1, 2015 9:55:11 AM UTC+10, Ismael VC wrote: > > +1 to addering to the git flow, I had also allways expected for the master > branch to be as stable and possible, while development happening in another > branch, not the other way around and sometimes I've had to search for a > past working commit in order to build julia, which strikes me as odd, as > you guys really follow good development techniques. >
Well, using master as the development branch is the Linux Kernal workflow, so I doubt you can call it unusual. It is also the approach mostly used in the git book chapter http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflows. Really experimental things are in feature branches which will eventually be merged into master. Stable is the release 0.3 branch. When the first 0.4 RCs are made, a branch will be made for 0.4. Cheers Lex PS thats as I understand the workflow as an outside observer, so consider this the test to see how understandable Julia's workflow is. > > Would it be difficult to change this, maybe for a post 0.4 era? > > El lunes, 29 de diciembre de 2014 10:36:19 UTC-6, Christian Peel escribió: >> >> Dan Luu has a critique of Julia up at http://danluu.com/julialang/ >> (reddit thread at http://bit.ly/1wwgnks) >> Is the language feature-complete enough that there could be an entire >> point release that targeted some of the less-flashy things he mentioned? >> I.e. commented code, better testing, error handling, and just fixing >> bugs? If it's not there, is there any thoughts on when it would be? >> >>
