><RANT MODE> >However, I think it's a backward approach to be making patches to a >branch, and then porting them over at some later time to trunk. >Branches should be static except when applying maintenance fixes, and >those fixes should be merged over from trunk after being tested, not >the other way around. As things stand, you get the worst of both >worlds -- you have a branch that doesn't have the latest features >combined with a trunk that doesn't have the latest bug fixes. In an
Do you really mean this literally? New features are for trunk, branches should not receive new features, only bug fixes. Aaron and I have been through this together in our day jobs, more than once. >ideal world, the timeframe for this would be small enough that maybe >it wouldn't be a big deal, but we all know that releases take multiple >days and often weeks in practice. ></RANT MODE> Dennis Byrne
