On 03/29/2014 09:48 AM, Tobiasz Karoń wrote: > > > Isn't this going to lead us to the same place where we've been before? > When the dev branch is super cool yet unusable and the stable branch > isn't moving at all? >
No. As long as we actually keep developing the master branch. The stable branch gets bugfixes only, it gets maintained. Dev branch gets the stuff we want for the next non-bugfix release. Pretty simple. > I think that keeping only one branch makes people more motivated to > keep things usable, not experimental. Anybody can have their > experiments in their own branches anyway. > > Am I correct? > You're a bit late to the punch. You should be here more often to give your opinions on things... things move fast these days. Keeping only one branch doesn't magically keep the development from going stale. It's all about the people, the developers, and how much they keep putting effort into LMMS development. As long as the development doesn't stall, we have no problems, and if it stalls, we have problems no matter how many branches we have - 1, 2 or 42. Keeping separate stable branches gives us incentive to keep the stable branch well maintained and stable. It lets us actually move forward with the development, and we can move faster with bugfixes. We can at the same time provide a stable release which gets maintained and fixed, while simultaneously working on improvements for the next generation. The same branched approach works fine for many open source projects, there's absolutely no reason why it wouldn't work for LMMS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
