Sanjay Radia wrote:
On Feb 2, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Konstantin Shvachko wrote:
> What do you recommend?
In general. There may be people/organizations, which will not compromise
on the reduced functionality in favor of the stability, this is
understandable.
I would propose to create a separate (unofficial experimental) branch,
which
would track changes like HADOOP-4379. The branch may later either die
when the
main stream is fixed or be merged with the trunk if the changes proved
to be stable.
This is very a interesting suggestion.
Many in the team have come to the conclusion that complex projects like
append should be done on a separate branch in the first place and
integrated with trunk when the project is stable.
There's a lot to be said for branching; I'm also looking at git so I can
do my service lifecycle stuff under SCM properly.
but the cost of merging can be high. I'd estimate 1 morning/week is
spent updating my local SVN and then seeing that everything still works.
If hudson could both test the branches and test any merged branches,
life would be better
The other problem is incompatible branches: the more branches you have
live, the higher the merge cost.
That said, Git promises wonderful things, and we ought to be able to set
up Apache support for git for people wanting to do their own branches
-svn would still be the official SCM tool
