Hi, > I would use the name "alt-trunk" instead of "unstable" for the other > branch. Every rule that applies to trunk would apply to the alt-trunk > branch. The issue I see is having one single branch not the name. You would be fine with the multi step step check in process (with unresolved issues) as describe below every time you wanted to make a change?
> Remember that if we do all the development in trunk, we would have > to do the same thing except that it would be a much bigger problem because > we dont have any place to go when we screw things up. How about svn revert? > When are happy with alt-trunk's state, we merge alt-trunk into trunk and > cut a release off of trunk. So we would have to have a code freeze while we sort out merge issues and the like? How would you not include the changes you did not want to go into trunk? Just want to make it clear what people are agreeing to. Thanks, Justin
