On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:10 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 05 August 2008 09:48:22 Will Coleda wrote: > >> Branches that don't rebase from trunk regularly are out of >> touch, yes. If you rebase regularly, then you're basically just a >> patch waiting to be applied.
> ... and, as time goes by, an ever-larger patch waiting to land on trunk with a > big thunk of unbisectable, unreviewable code. Again, that assumes that you're changing a lot of code in the branch. My problem is just keeping up with the changes in trunk when your particular patch is small. Even that is currently painful and shouldn't be. And can you explain how the patch is unreviewable? Unbisectable I can see, if you're looking just at trunk and not the branch. >> Whatever methodology we end up with, we also want it to address the >> fact that it's probably going to be different once we have 1.0; We're >> going to have to start using branches regularly to handle maintenance >> and new feature releases. I would hesitate to recommend our current >> system for that. > > Gah, no maintenance releases please! See "Mommy, why did it take over five > years to release a new stable version of Perl 5 with a bugfix I made in > 2002?" > > -- c > Perhaps I used an official term when I didn't mean to here. Let's simplify: I can easily see us needing at least "dev" and "production" branches (one of which can be trunk), which is one more than we have now. -- Will "Coke" Coleda
