On Oct 31, 2007 9:56 AM, Wincent Colaiuta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > El 31/10/2007, a las 15:40, "David Chelimsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > escribió: > Recently with all of the activity on the story runner front I've > thought that RSpec could benefit from a slightly more "branched" > development process. At the moment it appears that *all* development > activity occurs on the trunk, which means that when there are long > periods between releases you have no choice but to live with the old > version or sit on the bleeding edge. > > If RSpec had a "development" and "maintenance" branch (or "stable" and > "devel"; "master" and "maint"; call them what you will) then it would > be easier to contemplate intermediate maintenance releases while > working on big new features which take a long time to get "baked in", > like the story runner. > > As an example, consider how the Rails 2.0 preview release came out and > the trunk wasn't really ready to have a release cut from it for > compatibility, so people have had to follow the trunk. It would have > been nice to be able to cut a 1.0.9 release from a maintenance branch > instead. > > If the suckiness of Subversion's merge functionality is a problem then > RSpec should consider moving to a different SCM, or at least layering > one on top of the existing Subversion repo (ie. "the" Subversion repo > continues to be the centralized distribution point, but the devs do > the "real work" using Git).
Please start new conversations with a new subject. This is unrelated to the heckle problem and deserves a thread of its own. I responded (in a new thread) on the rspec-devel list, which is the appropriate home for discussions about dev process: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-devel/2007-October/004194.html Cheers, David _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
