Jeffrey Harris wrote:
Branching is less constraining from a development standpoint but there's
the added burden of committing to 2 branches for a substantial amount of
time, something we may want to avoid right now. Eventually (when we have
a big enough community of committers), branching might be the only way
to go though.
This relates, I think, to how atomic our commits are. One of the points
in the Fogel book seemed to be that it's important to make atomic
commits, splitting changes into the smallest logical part. I think if
we did that more consistently, the pain of committing to two branches
would be somewhat lessened.
Also from the Fogel book: "Merging has an important corollary: never
commit the same change twice."
Getting into the regular practice of requiring developers to commit the
same change to 2 branches scares me. Presumably if we avoid omnibus
commits, we could also be merging changes from branch to branch.
Cheers,
Katie
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
