On 26-4-2011 17:00, Richard Heck wrote: > 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 think if we develop a feature in a separate branch, it's easier to review whether it is finished and stable enough to be merged into the 2.0.x branch. > > I do worry about how difficult it might get to keep three really separate > branches in sync. Using git it is not that difficult. Given that there are not too many major refactorizations of course. Don't know how to handle major refactorizations. Mostly refactorizations imply no functionality change. This then implies that it is safe to backport these to the "not-so-unstable" branches. > > Richard > Vincent
