I think what Jeff has said is ideal for a stable 1.0 or 1.1 release of a kernal. I also think it's absolutely the direction we should be heading in, but not this afternoon. The desire to keep a 0.4.x stable branch is a symptom of a bigger QA problem, one that I am attempting to address in general.
Gavin has reminded me to test, test, test. I implore anyone who clicks the pull button to not only test their code, but write down how they tested it. The issue tracker is somewhat out of control, and my opinion is that a stable branch is not going to fix it. This stage of development can be agitating, as you implement code in the wild - it is outpaced or broken easily. The sooner we can get a robust QA process to hammer out bugs, and process pulls - the closer we are to a stable 1.0 release. Please contact me if you would like to help contribute to the bug hammering - I promise that we can find ways to make it interesting/challenging. (working on a zapper too!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy1 _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
