On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 09:37:26AM -0600, Mike Tutkowski wrote: >> One other thought here is that we might want to wait until, say, the day >> after code freeze - if allowable - and then check in these kinds of changes >> (basically give them special permission to go in after code freeze). >> >> I think they're valuable since they do make the code much more readable, >> but it might be better if they go in once development is "frozen." > > The challenge with that, is that sweeping changes like this (or > architectural changes as well) are best done *early* in a release cycle. > The challenge we've run into here is that while 4.2 work is proceeding, > master is open for 4.3 changes (and there is a preference that if > something big is going to come in, nows the time to do it). > > Perhaps that model is what's broken? >
I agree - and the package name change is another such change, that when it lands will result in a ton of extra work for dealing with bugs across branches. If it's really just reformatting - why aren't we reformatting 4.2 as well.
