On Apr 28, 2010, at 4:10 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > > On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:45 AM, David E Jones wrote: > >> >> +1 >> >> -David >> >> P.S. Quick, get your foot in the door! Throw in buggy stuff while you have a >> chance... you can commit bug fixes later but not new features. ;) >> >> P.P.S. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm becoming obsessed with looking at rule >> systems and guessing at behavior people will use to game the system. > > This is actually a very good point and it will be interesting to see what > happens. In general, I like simple and natural rules, especially when there > is an opportunity to discuss (and possibly "blend" them in special > circumstances). > The most interesting part, as you mention, is to see how the rules are > It could even result to be a good thing: if committers will push stuff into > the trunk right before the release branch, even if it is buggy stuff (to all: > hey, please, do not exaggerate!) it means that committers are interested in > the release branch and so they will most likely take care of "fixing" or at > least maintaining their stuff in the release branch. > Also, now that we are defining a rather standard approach to releases I think > it will be easier to call a vote for a new releases (even if it is out of our > tentative plan to create a branch per year), and the majority will decide by > vote... maybe this will (but I am just dreaming) end up with a more community > driven release strategy, where the community will determine the release > branches that are of interests and the ones that are not.
I think you're right Jacopo. This hasn't been a problem in the past (that I've noticed anyway), and if it was a problem it would be a good problem to have. -David
