I didn't know that fact about the Linux kernel, or how usual it is, I've just red the git book and it explains it like this:
http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Branching-Branching-Workflows On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 7:30 PM, <ele...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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? >>> >>>
