Testing. If everyone is working on branches on cool new stuff, the release will be crap.
On 5/17/11, Alexis Ménard <men...@kde.org> wrote: > Hello, > > Not sure this was discussed before but I'd like to bring the topic for > discussion. > > Now that KDE moved to git it seems we still have old habits like > "Freezing period" on trunk (or should I say master branches of each > git repos). That sounds like weird to me when one of the main feature > of git is branch management. Unlike SVN it's easy for anyone to switch > from a branch to another one, making back-porting patches very easy, > checkouting being 10 times more easy. > > I know it's a wider announcement so that people focus on bug fix > rather than feature (which is great). Now I don't understand why the > branching of let say 4.7 does not happen before on each repo (when the > freeze is decided) and we could make the policy on branches way more > clear and defined what could go on the branch and what can't go (just > using the procedure we have today). It has always been annoying the > fact that you couldn't hack features in the official trunk, people had > to use personal svn branches and now teams like plasma think about > setup integration repos. That sounds weird, you usually use these > extra branches for huge stuff you don't want to put in trunk right now > (like big refactoring, or research) not for every little features or > improvements projects want to push. To me the term "trunk" means it's > always open to features. I'm sure the Plasma need is not alone and we > will see these integration repos pop for not particular reason and > will mess up the history (with merge commit), make the checkout > complicated for people to use vanilla and make the KDE project > complicated to understand. > > I looked around and all projects using git I've tried (and I'm not > saying I covered all :D) have a trunk always open to features. Ok it's > not as complicated/big as KDE but still. > > Perhaps I miss a point here so if it's the case, could you please tell me? > > I'm trying to see if our workflow could be improved. > > Thanks. >