David Kastrup wrote Thursday, November 03, 2011 9:01 AM
Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes:
and there's no point having everbody work on dev/staging instead
of
master; we'll still get random breakage and so we'll be no better
off
than having everybody working on master.
Huh? The point is that not that we won't get "random breakage".
The
point is we won't get unnecessary random breakage in master, and
that
master is never rewound (thus providing a dependable basis for
private
patches and branches), is good material for bisection, only
getting
material that has passed the complete round of tests available at
a
given point of time.
... and a new dev release can be reliably made
at any time from master, knowing everything
contained therein is guaranteed to compile.
All problematic commits are constrained to staging.
New releases could even be issued at regular
intervals.
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
