On May 31, 2005, at 8:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:
(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
if that happens, w/o a stable area, we have to put all changes except
certification related changes on hold until we pass.
right?
geir
thanks
david jencks
-David
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
