On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 18:02 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mark> And you should not see it as "private" or "may be broken at random > Mark> times". It should be as much as possible something that you work with a > Mark> team on (and if there is no team - yet - then there is nothing as bad as > Mark> having a completely broken build to get others to help out). > > Actually, I think it is reasonable to have a "may be broken" branch. > In fact this is one of the main reasons for having a branch -- if you > can keep stuff building and working, in many cases you won't need a > branch at all.
Yeah, this may be a bit too strong. I meant it as a strong warning that the branch cannot be a dumping ground for some code that isn't even supposed to work. I'll reformulate that as: @item A branch should not be seen as ``private'' or ``may be completely broken''. It should be as much as possible something that you work on with a team (and if there is no team - yet - then there is nothing as bad as having a completely broken build to get others to help out). There can of course be occasional breakage, but it should be planned and explained. And you can certainly have a rule like ``please ask me before committing to this branch''. Let me know if that still doesn't capture the spirit. Cheers, Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list Classpath@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
