We already have used temporary branches for major features in the past. I'm sure we'll continue to do this (through gitlab merge requests) where it makes sense - it's a lot of work to keep a feature branch in mergeable state.
-Jon On Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 10:16 Jonatan Liljedahl <li...@kymatica.com> wrote: > Good points. However, I still think it might make sense to have at > least one more level of granularity, and use temporary branches for > major changes etc. so that they can be tested before being merged into > master. Simply, to make a merge request for big changes even if done > by one of the core developers. Going back to the 5.1 branch just to > have a non-crashing version of kicad is quite a leap. > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 3:41 PM Wayne Stambaugh <stambau...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > We have discussed this before and given that very few users would ever > > test the development branch(es), I'm not going to change our branching > > policy. I don't think it's unfair to ask users who are aware that the > > master branch (which is the KiCad development branch) is always in a > > state of flux to deal with a bit of temporary instability in exchange > > for some comprehensive testing of new features. Most users seem willing > > to help with the testing in spite of some minor and sometimes some not > > so minor inconveniences. I think have development branches would just > > slow down how quickly new feature bugs would get fixed. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Wayne > > > > On 12/11/19 9:21 AM, Jonatan Liljedahl wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Perhaps it would make sense to adopt something like this? > > > > https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/#the-main-branches > > > > > > In short, all development happens on 'develop' branch and only when > > > this is stable it's merged back to 'master'. One doesn't have to > > > follow the above model strictly, for example a merge into master > > > doesn't need to mean "new version to be released". > > > > > > Another nice thing is that stuff that are work in progress and not yet > > > stable can live in a feature branch until it's stable enough to merge > > > into 'develop'. (For example the new symbol inheritance stuff, which > > > currently makes the master branch a bit unusable) > > > > > > Maybe some of this makes sense, and some not? Just some thoughts while > > > trying to find a point in the master branch history that doesn't crash > > > all the time :) > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > -- > /Jonatan > http://kymatica.com > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
