On Wednesday, February 2, 2011, Thiago Macieira wrote: > I still think the current procedure is wrong. You're not testing the stable > release, there's no guarantee that you're solving the problem at all, or > worse, that you're not making it worse.
and, imho, the stable branch is the more important thing to test: if it goes wrong in master due to a bad or unecessary merge from stable, you usually have months to notice and fix it. certain you or your teammates that also track master will notice it faster than if it sits in the stable branch where primary devel isn't happening anymore. with our monthly x.y.z releases, you have at most a few weeks with fewer people tracking the stable branch to catch a bad merge from master. so, again at least imho, the risk is higher when backporting compared to forward porting. and finally we have a tool that makes it reasonably painless to do it. :) -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
