Oleg Tkachenko wrote: > Victor Mote wrote: > > >>> Branches imply > >>>eventual merging, > >> > >>Not necessarily. > > > > > > I'll be happy to consider this point if someone will name even > one benefit > > to keeping code that will never be merged in the same tree. > Well, the main idea of branches is just to split development, e.g. for > the sake of some release bug handling, but branches are not obliged to > be merged eventually. Usual development pattern is to branch a release > code and continue development with no care about it (bugs are fixed in > the branch) and when a new release is ready all patches and bug fixes in > branched code *may be* just irrelevant because of new (e.g. redesigned > :) implemention. > Following this pattern, development of branched code is just ugly mess > as it's first of all *maintenance* release.
I agree that maintenance branches are not obliged to be merged eventually, but you still have not shown any benefit to keeping them in the same tree if they are not. Usual development pattern would also be that someone makes sure that new functionality doesn't get added to the maintenance release. That is apparently what Keiron is attempting to do now, and I have no problem with that. However, our web site says this: "If you want to work with the latest and nicest code, you can use the cvs version. See the section on AnonCVS in the xml.apache.org documentation for details.... "Important: Currently, releases of FOP are coming out of the "fop-0_20_2-maintain" branch. The "MAIN" branch is used for the redesign. See NEW DESIGN for more information." I hope I will be forgiven for not correctly interpreting the multitude of mixed signals. Victor Mote --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
