Jumping over to Ben's side of the discussion, Git helps with this, but does not eliminate the problem. At some point the changes become difficult to understand relative to the new code and may even collide in ways that are difficult to merge.
It is true, however, that patches can be kept live using tools like git. That is how I kept the multi stuff alive, but there was at least one tricky merge to be done. On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Thomas Koch <tho...@koch.ro> wrote: > Thanks to Ted for replying. I will save the mail I started in the drafts > folder until I've calmed down again. > > Benjamin Reed: > > deprioritizing them doesn't help because the patches themselves bit > > rot. shortly they will not apply and then they will be worthless. the > > poor contributor would then be left with the task of maintaining a > > patch that would never commit. > You should really give GIT a try. I've kept a pipeline of half a douzend > patches filled and current over the last two months while drinking my > morning > coffee. > Likewise have I updated my development branch of over a douzend commits > every > morning against the new ZK trunk. > > Regards, > > Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro >
