> On Apr 22, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> On an unrelated note, offline I was pitching to a bunch of contributors
> another idea to deal with rotting trunk post 3.x: *Make 3.x releases off of
> trunk directly*.
>
> What this gains us is that
> - Trunk is always nearly stable or nearly ready for releases
> - We no longer have some code lying around in some branch (today’s trunk)
> that is not releasable because it gets mixed with other undesirable and
> incompatible changes.
> - This needs to be coupled with more discipline on individual features -
> medium to to large features are always worked upon in branches and get merged
> into trunk (and a nearing release!) when they are ready
> - All incompatible changes go into some sort of a trunk-incompat branch and
> stay there till we accumulate enough of those to warrant another major
> release.
>
> Thoughts?
Unless I’m missing something, all this proposal does is (using today’s
branch names) effectively rename trunk to trunk-incompat and branch-2 to trunk.
I’m unclear how moving "rotting trunk” to “rotting trunk-incompat” is really
progress.
