Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Can you better define "might break the trunk"? Technically any change > could break trunk, but I think you're specifically talking about "complex" > changes since you mentioned "large change". I'd feel better if that > were quantified, and want to make sure it's clear that not every change > needs a branch (since every change might break trunk). > > If you are talking about a "complex" change requiring a branch for > testing/etc before "svn merge", then +1. :) > > /me has this pet peeve about vagueness in policies
Some examples: * rewriting message parsing code at start of 3.0. * past configuration code rewrite * planned rewrite of 3.1 PerMsgStatus * planned plugin-izing of Bayes Not sure exactly how to phrase it, but it's a judgement/social thing. Basically, we're saying "branches for experimental stuff are open for business" and their usage is encouraged. Remember, someone can always veto your huge code change if it's not deemed as ready. Daniel -- Daniel Quinlan http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
