On 1/9/13 10:01 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Jan 9, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Paul McNett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I reverted a set of commits with changes for 1.0 from the working branch, >> > and instead >> > kept them in a new working-1.0 branch. > When I'm developing, I can have several local branches for various > things, but "working" is the only one propagated to GitHub. It is the one > that devs or users who want to test upcoming changes will use. > > Dabo users should be on master if they want the stable stuff; they > shouldn't use working unless they are prepared for potential breakage. I > think that you should keep these breaking changes in working so that they get > better tested, and so we learn what we need to better document.
I had an internal debate along these lines before deciding to do this. It came down to liking the split between saying "here are fixes and new things we want to put in an upcoming minor release, please test them" versus "here are changes that will break prior behavior, please make the needed changes on your end and test them". It seemed like the best of both worlds - allowing developers to track the edge but not necessarily bleed if they don't want to. I wouldn't want, for example, people like John to avoid the working branch because too many things are broken all at once with no warning. After all, it could be that 1.0 doesn't happen for longer than we hope, and we'll go through several minor releases before that. However, I'm willing to sway on this. I do agree we want people using and understanding the changes early so they are more able to help the users when we do finally release 1.0. Paul _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-users Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-users This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/[email protected]
