On 08/15/2011 11:39 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > If we get back on track with regular releases the occasional trunk > breakage will be OK as people won't be forced to use arbitrary trunk > revisions.
No, it is not OK at all. IMHO every recorded history should be a monolithic working library. Only if you do that you make sure that every release is just fine because if you don't, people will make errors and people will forget some thing or the other. "Ok, I'm done with it, for now I commit it and tomorrow I'll fix the special case". If patches don't get revised, it results exactly in the situation we have in log4net right now: 101 revisions since the last release and nobody knows whether those "fixes" do really fix the issues or those revisions are safe to include in the next release because there are no unit tests. I don't think that's funny. If there's the risk that your logging dll crashes a software responsible to do your money transfers just because some patch was included that shouldn't have been, the fun ends for sure. Well, maybe I'm overdoing it a little but IMHO a library that is well spread should be developed "safe". >> Indeed the history how a single patch evolves is not at ASF, but since >> patches should be sent to the mailing list > > Nope. JIRA. Then the medium to transfer a patch is JIRA and not the mailing list. Doesn't change much, does it? :-) -- Dominik Psenner ## OpenPGP Key Signature ################################# # Key ID: B469318C # # Fingerprint: 558641995F7EC2D251354C3A49C7E3D1B469318C # ##########################################################
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
