(reordered)
Just going to throw out that I think the only goal we can all agree on
is to not regress on certification once we achieve it.
I certainly hope we agree on this :-) but hope we can find more to
agree on.
On May 31, 2005, at 4:40 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:21:21PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:50:43AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Can we agree that we need to somehow construct the stable, unstable
and sandbox codebases?
I don't think we have agreed on what is stable and what is unstable.
We were having a discussion on the fact that it is now impossible to
offer a stable upgrade/patch path for applications. That thread was
killed with "PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER CERTIFICATION."
Now Jeremy has proposed that we ignore that discussion and begin
cementing what we currently have as stable. How is that at all fair?
I don't know about fair, but I am finding this discussion nearly as
distracting as the previous one that we put on hold. I still don't see
what exotic svn tricks might buy us over normal svn usage, and don't
want to spend a lot of time thinking about it until we pass all the
tests. I still think everyones perspective may change once we are
passing all the tests and have fixed the few egregious architectural
problems that crept in.
I would like to put this discussion on hold until we pass all the tests
thanks
david jencks
-David
