On 2/11/13 11:19 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote: > From the looks of it there needs to be an evaluation of what is going. > > 1) There are fundamental changes in the works, which until now have not been > discussed. I for one had no knowledge of the Wiki entry.
I've pointed to it at least twice, once just yesterday and once maybe a month ago, both on the developers list. I didn't think I should post anything about it to the user's list since they aren't using the versions in question yet. > 2) There does not seem to be a coherent branching/naming strategy. > Master/working > does not really tell me anything. You are right. Ed and I don't always have all the time at our disposal to make sure everyone is kept duly informed. Sorry. However: master: this branch will always be the latest release working: this branch is the bleeding edge You can checkout a specific tag or locate it on GitHub if you want something other than that. > 3) Change is not bad, but it should be managed. Right now it looks like bug > fixes and > fundamental changes are happening together. I would prefer to see some sort > of branch > naming/tagging strategy that would isolate a bug fix branch from the testing > branch. I fear that anything more complicated than what we are doing will result in nothing getting done. Locally I make a ton of branches, but I merge them into working before pushing up. So each commit should be pretty focused topic-wise. I don't really see the utility for a separate bug-fix public branch. Why is it bad to keep doing things as we've been doing for years, having bleeding edge (bug fixes and new stuff - trunk or working) and discrete releases? 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]
