> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > While we are > > still developing the next version the code will by necessity be unstable > > and untested. Maybe you mean that with a release this close, no new code > > should have been checked in? > > I think it should be checked into the proposal directories and then WHEN it > is stable and it has achieved enough votes it can be moved to the main tree. > Everytime someone starts messing with fundamental things and buggers it up my > nightly builds go haywire.
But then, whenever someone messes up a bugfix in the main tree your nightly builds will go loco. If you include the CVS snapshots of all your dependent libraries in your build, your build will not go through unless all CVS snapshots are stable etc. Given a finite probability that the CVS snapshots will not compile this does not scale to many dependencies. > Backwards compatability was thrown to the wind when experimentation occured > on COnfiguration stuff - enough that I just turned off my nightlies. WOuldn't > it be better that backwards compatability had been kept, experimentation done > in a branch, another tree and then merged across? For reasons above, just because it has entered the main tree does not mean that it will not be screwed up. If you use the very latest bleeding edge versions from CVS you will have broken builds. If I were you I'd fix my Avalon dependencies to a released version - 4.0. Then, when you have a 4.1rc1 or 4.1b that you consider stable enough you can move your projects to it. > None of these things should occur. In an ideal world, they don't. /LS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
