I think though we should setup a review system. To get anything included in a stable branch 2 reviews are needed. Master no reviews. This is a slightly modified approach adapted from what libreoffice do On 29 Mar 2014 10:42, "Vesa" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 03/29/2014 10:59 AM, David Gerard wrote: > > Tobiasz is worried because this is what happened before - the 0.5.x > > branch was cool-but-unusable, and was eventually abandoned; 1.0 > > descends from the 0.4.x branch, which people actually used and tested > > and was where all the action happened. > > > > So I'd just take it as a note of caution :-) Something like: 1.0 > > stable branch just for serious bugs (crashers, etc); master for all > > new work, *but* keep master usable at all times (by the adventurous) > > as otherwise it will bitrot; experimental work in smaller branches, > > merge as soon as usable. > > > > Of course we have to watch out not to repeat past mistakes. But the > branched approach is still the best way we can go about this. We're in a > much better position now, there have been more commits, more people > getting involved in LMMS, than probably ever before... We can do this. > We just have to keep the roles of the branches clearly defined and > separate. And keep the people interested. > > We should be careful not to repeat mistakes, but we also shouldn't let > past failures chain us and prevent us from reaching for great things in > the future. >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
