On 04/26/2011 10:46 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
I'm not advocating to have 3 layers in general.
ok, Abdel is :)
if i understand correctly there are 3 proposals:
1) 3 trees:
- agile (gui things)
- trunk (fileformat)
- stable
2) 2 trees, 3 trees in freze transitions
3) current scheme with sooner alpha.
1 is more rapid, less comfortable for stable minded people more comfortable for
new feature oriented minds. not to be forgotten we probably need 3 persons
on management.
2 is little bit slower, still during the freeze will be little lower
interest in stabilizing the tree, because the activity in 3rd one.
3 could happen if we have more directed managment than it was for current
release from the very beginning.
I am still wondering if there is not some way to proceed here that would
allow more new features that do not touch file format into the stable
branch. It seems to me that the main concern is that some new features
that could have been included in 1.6.x were not, because it is
considered "stable". I guess we would still have to have a third tree,
but maybe it could be limited to new features and NOT include the kinds
of code refactoring and cleanup that is common in trunk. I.e., only new
features could go into that branch that did not touch much other code.
Perhaps we could think of it as a kind of "pre-stable" branch, intended
to be not the next release but one a couple out.
I do worry about how difficult it might get to keep three really
separate branches in sync.
Richard
