Lars Gullik Bjønnes a écrit :
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes a écrit :
| > "Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | > There is always the branches/personal/* sub-tree, where you can
| > put
| > | > whatever.
| > | | But who will check out from there and test? My proposal was not
| > for
| > | commit, rather for easy testing for developers or even users.
| > Doing a switch to a different tree than trunk is for me somewhat
| > easier than applying a patch. (At least sometimes)
|
| So why don't we create an official "next" branch. I know I am
| repeating myself but nobody felt the need to answer me :-(
The official 'next' branch is trunk.
If you need a branch to test/checkout/store patch in that will later
be merged to trunk then you do just that... we do not need several
'next' branches.
I have to improve my English as you don't seem to understand me. I am
talking about an easier way to improve a patch in a public way instead
of sending back and forth the updated patch. When the patch meets your
personal quality expectation then you can merge it to trunk. If you want
an analogy, that would be a bit similar to what Andrew Morton is doing
for the kernel. That experimental branch would be a repository for patch
that are in need to be reviewed and/or corrected.
Am I clear now?
