On Thursday 29 June 2006 12:32, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2006, at 21:32, Frans Englich wrote:
> > Why don't you decide to separate development into two "branches"?
>
> This would in effect be two different computer programs, which would
> require different names, and different development teams.
The conservative version would only have bug fixes, so over time it would
require very little maintenance.
I don't think it would require different names, a major version would suffice.
It would be like with the Linux kernel where 2.2/2.4/2.6 differs
drastically(same scheme is used in Apache), but it's still the same project.
It's quite common to have a stable branch and a "move forward" branch(KDE,
GNOME, to name a few).
Saying "This would in effect be two different computer programs" is to
conclude the whole point of the idea. The point is to separate the two
mutually exclusive ideas of conservatism, and supplying a piece that is
designed how users actually wants it.
Cheers,
Frans
