Adrian Holovaty wrote: > That's exactly what we're using the branches for: Things get broken on > the branches as branch owner merge in new features. Eventually, bugs > get worked out, and they do a code freeze prior to the merge to make > the branch as stable as possible.
I suppose the disadvantage to this is getting users to test branches. > The self-imposed limitation to making trunk usable at all times is one > of the things I particularly like about our arrangement. It's mostly > for developer convenience, so fans of the latest-and-greatest can > simply "svn update" their Django codebase to get the latest, with > minimal breakage. It's all the convenience of daily builds with none > of the upgrade overhead. I admit I like it too. What about a hybrid approach? Maybe be less strict about how stable a branch is if it's "close enough". Then merge with trunk to get extra testers and bug fixes. For me, I develop on my local machine against trunk. If a branch merge comes down and something breaks, I'd likely end up looking at recent commits and post a message to django-users, or file a bug. Instant testing and bug reports. :) Maybe this is the current model but it feels like a rock solid branch is wanted before a merge to trunk happens. That requires testing on branches which is extra work and an apparent hindrance. -Rob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
