On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:37:34AM +0100, Chris Bowditch wrote: > Vincent Hennebert wrote: > >Hi Simon, > > Hi Simon, Vincent, > > > > >The report looks good. Just a thing about the ChangingIPD hack: actually > >it is still undecided whether it should be merged back to Trunk or not. > > > >My main concern about that is that it will get in the way when > >implementing the new approach. I will basically have to start with > >reverting all the changes made for the hack. > > > >My idea was to actively maintain the branch in sync with the Trunk. > >Releases could then be made from the branch. But this may actually turn > >out to be more work than reverting all the changes in one go. Plus it > >has been mentioned to me that this may create difficulties for users who > >regularly take snapshots of the Trunk (the branch will always lag > >a little bit behind). > > > >Any opinion about this is welcome. Meanwhile, I???ll modify the status > >report. > > Thanks for bringing this up Vincent. I am a little reluctant to be > working off a branch as we regularly take build snapshots from > trunk. This creates a lot of extra work keeping the branch in sync. > > I think we all acknowledge that the changing IPD hack is just that > and therefore code quality may be sub optimal. However, since > Vincent is working on a totally new layout engine then we expect > this code to be replaced a year or so down the line anyway. > Therefore if the only reason for not putting this change into trunk > is to save effort at the point when the new layout algorithm is > introduced then I think this hack should be merged with trunk. This > is because it will be more time consuming to do a 100 or so merges > over a 1-2 year period than to remove changes from trunk in a one > time exercise.
I appreciate your point of view. I expect you will announce your intention to merge the changing IPD branch with trunk when the time is there. Then it is a good time to hear everyone's opinion. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
