Norman Maurer wrote:
> Noel wrote:
> > Stefano wrote:
> > > We can't take weeks and dozen of messages for each single commit.
> >
> > Depends upon the nature of the change. Weeks and weeks of active
> > discussion? Might be quite useful. Weeks of silence? Not so much.
> > Dozens of messages on something? I'd expect nothing less for some
> > types of changes, althought I would also expect development to start
> > at some point during the discussion.
> Thats maybe right but the problem is that at some point the discussion
> seems to die always. Anyway why not change things and post it like done
> in the fetchmail code if its a bigger change. So anyone can have a
> look and give feedback. But like you see that also not work like aspected.
As you suggest, we want development to happen actively within source
control, so that people can see the changes as they happen. The fetchmail
code might have been a good example of when to use a branch, since it was
relatively isolated, and would have been easy to merge in afterwards. Steve
wasn't saying that the changes were bad, he was saying that the changes were
substantial, and without having good testing coverage, they are very risky
to replace code in trunk that is generally considered to be working.
> James is a great project but sometimes we take to long
Yes. And one of the things that held us up for a long time was making
changes that blocked our ability to get good releases out the door. I'd
like to learn from that, and avoid a repeat.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
