On 22/6/17 10:16 pm, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:03:33AM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:18:56 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin
<[email protected]> wrote:
As usual with such proposal, where do you find the manpower to handle the number
of branches required (the quarterly branches are already hard to maintain, it is
only one branch).
Please help me out here, Baptiste, because I'm apparently missing
*something*.
Out in industry, if you haven't enough people to do a new
high-quality release every N months, and you can't get a
headcount increase, then you cut the release schedule. Can't do
4 releases a year? Cut back to 2. Still too many? Cut back to
1.
The alternatives to cutting the schedule are that (a) people
begin burning out and quitting, (b) quality drops and your
customer base begins abandoning you, or (c) both of the above.
Why don't the same choices apply here? What am I missing?
We only have 1 quarterly branch at the time :)
The model with one branch per release will bring it to way more with a
maintenance window way larger (actually it is 3 month making the quarterly
relatively easy to maintain)
Yeah but the quarterly branches are relatively useless because they a
not sync'd to anything and mean nothing special to anyone.
As soon as you sync to one, it's deleted and replaced by a completely
different one meaning you have to replace *EVERYTHING*,
so one might as well just use head. it's actually easier.
Best regards,
Bapt
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
