On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:29 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote a lot of tl;dr and then :
> This likely > means that we'll need a small army of quality fascists who take a > serious interest in quality, and are liberal with vetoes and reverts > until we get something that automates gating on quality. > So far we have been having consecutive one-man-armies for that but I am on board for this to help our present one. It will not work perfectly for 4.5 but we will learn and improve. I don't agree that we need a feature branch. A branch per tiny little enhancement is maybe not the best either. Some of our intelligence and communicative skills will have to putting related stuff together so conflicts are solved early. possible but far fetched scenario: A, B and c are developed while tons of fixes go into the releasable branch. A and C are merged while B is merged with the main release branch. then A+C is merged back. the release is build. -- Daan
