On 8/3/06, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><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.
I guess that didn't come through as clearly as it could have. No, I'm
not proposing that we add new features to the branch :-) What I'm
proposing is that we add bug fixes to the trunk first. My attempted
comment was that there's no place currently where you're getting both
the bug fixes and the new features (and new features includes bug
fixes not important enough to be applied to the branch). You have to
pick one or the other. If someone goes with the trunk, they should
always have the latest bug fixes. If someone goes with a branch,
they should have any bug fixes that were significant enough to
backport.
