On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 03:33:50PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > Isn't that what branches are for? Why don't we set up a GUII branch and play > there. Ditto André/Jürgen could set up a RewriteCursorCodeToUseMetrics > branch. It isn't too hard to maintain a branch against changes in head if the > merging of changes in head into the branch is done regularly.
But it won't get tested as much as if it went in the main line. There are quite few things planned that will "break everything". So I'd suggest everybody gets two months to put in his favourite changes, of course trying not to break to much stuff, but not too worried if some "minor" stuff gets broken, either. In the end everything will be a big mess, and we declare "fix up time", i.e. try to re-assemble the pieces and "get it running" again. Not exactly a freeze, but sort of "cooling down" things. New stuff could be added in this phase if it is "local". Several branches would lead to the same situation as we had now: Some group "is a bit late" and everybody else sits there and waits. Not nice. No fun. > I really think we should be making more use of branches. I don't think so. Unless of course, I did not understand that whole branch business (which might well be) Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
