On Thu, 16 May 2002, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 03:33:50PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > > Isn't that what branches are for? Why don't we set up a GUII branch and play > > there. Ditto André/Jürgen could set up a RewriteCursorCodeToUseMetrics > > branch. It isn't too hard to maintain a branch against changes in head if the > > merging of changes in head into the branch is done regularly. > > But it won't get tested as much as if it went in the main line.
The idea of a branch is to get some project mostly done -- so it works-for-me and anyone who cares to test it -- and that code is then merged into the _stable_ trunk and we fix all the ripples. This way there are small ripples not big waves caused by several projects thrashing about in the trunk. (like my mixed metaphors?) It does require a change of mindset but it also provides for more scope in project management. Lars/We gets to control when branches get merged and in what order. It also means we can set a date of the next release and set a cutoff for merging branches of 4 to 6 weeks before that date. > There are quite few things planned that will "break everything". All the more reason why they should be in separate branches or we do a bit of project management and work out the dependencies between projects and try to resolve those issues first (whether it be in a branch or in the trunk). > So I'd suggest everybody gets two months to put in his favourite changes, > of course trying not to break to much stuff, but not too worried if some > "minor" stuff gets broken, either. > > In the end everything will be a big mess, and we declare "fix up time", > i.e. try to re-assemble the pieces and "get it running" again. Not exactly > a freeze, but sort of "cooling down" things. New stuff could be added in > this phase if it is "local". Fix up time is a major pain because half way through a project that breaks everything one or more developers gets extra work in their paid jobs (just like Lars and Jürgen last year) and everyone gets delayed. If said "project-that-breaks-everything" is in a branch the changes don't get lost, but they also don't delay the next release. > Several branches would lead to the same situation as we had now: Some group > "is a bit late" and everybody else sits there and waits. Not nice. No fun. If some group is late they miss the cut and have to wait for the next release. They don't actually stop the trunk from being usable. Allan. (ARRae)
