--On Wednesday, May 29, 2002 11:00 AM +0300 Oded Arbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>
>> Well.. To be honest, using the CVS is an advantage because that way
>> we get 100% testing and debug, code is done with less errors and bugs
>> are fixed quicker ;)
>>
>> I'm always using cvs in production. Some bugs are only visible on
>> production systems and I don't have time to do testings before
>> upgrading. And if some message is lost, I can always blame the SMSC ;)
>>
>>
>> There's some structural changes that we should do, and for that
>> we really need a different branch. Modularity, new autoconf, real
>> unicode support, etc.
>>
>> But for that, before thinking in branches and releases, we should
>> think in the new architecture.
>>
>>
>
> I do not agree - we cannot even think of architecture changes while
> everyone is building their production systems from CVS.
I agree here.
> while here we
> also build our production from CVS by choice, for the same reasons you
> stated, this is a "bad thing(tm)". it's our obligation to supply a
> "stable" branch for people who rather have something that is known to
> work, then the bleeding edge (which is most people).
I would say (as mentioned in other emails) take the branch for a
stable release version. Those should not change that much as the
main branch were development is done.
> If we start doing
> architectural changes on the CVS, while everyone is using it to build
> their production, we will break things for people who don't/can't know
> how to handle it.
I simply do not understnad why people in the first place use a,
so-called, non stable CVS version in the production. It is well possible
that it si not even tested well enough.
>
> So a branch is a must before doing any major surgery on the code.
I agree. However, I believe that the main branch should be the main
development
line, unless it would be something very experimental.
Harrie
Internet Management Consulting
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http ://www.mod-snmp.com/
