On May 4, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > I'm confused. What do you mean by "a more stable framework?" Is the framework > currently unstable?
I should have said probably "a more static framework" > > What do you mean by "more dynamic applications?" This doesn't make a lot of sense, I was probably just tired. My proposal was addressed in having a more severe policy in the commits that change the features of the framework but let the applications features set grows freely. This is why I suggested to commit the new features for the framework in a separate branch, test it, and then merge back in a scheduled way. Kind regards, Jacopo > > -Adrian > > On 5/4/2010 12:04 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> What if we start evaluating a different way we organize our svn, daily work >> and release strategy? >> We may try to move in the direction of having a more stable framework and >> more dynamic applications. >> >> A very simple strategy would be the following one: >> >> all the changes to the framework (that are not bug fixes) are done in a >> separate branch (branches/framework-latest or similar); in this way >> trunk/framework will only get bug fixes. >> Every 6-12 months (or whenever we want - we can discuss about this) we merge >> the branches/framework-latest into trunk/framework and fix the >> trunk/applications (of course we could do this in a separate temporary >> branch). >> >> What do you think? >> >> Jacopo >> >>
