On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, certainly not. The best would have been to have a building trunk, > and some branches which may have build failure, but as we don't have > branches yet, let's fix the trunk and then switch to a better politic > : use branches for experiments. In the mean time, well, intrepid users > will have some opportunity to find fixes for the trunk ;) > > Spreading this kind of messge ( "trunk is unstable" ) is superfluous. > Trunks are not supposed to be stable, and if someone want to use it > for any kind of production application, this is its call.
Yeah, as I write above I certainly agree with this. So, what would be the preferred option here while we restructure the code? Since some changes are quite large they might inevitably break tests for some interim period. 1. trunk is unstable, tests might breaks (this is the current solution) 2. Current trunk is moved to a branch, no trunk exists 3. The 1.4 branch (which will see no further development unless someone steps up) is promoted to trunk and the current trunk is moved into a branch I'm perfectly happy wih either of these, but out of three bad options I choose 1. /niklas
