On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 11:40:55AM +1000, Conrad Canterford wrote: > On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 20:26 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 07:33:55PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote: > > > Then how do we get a proposed change audited before it's commited to > > > the 2.0 branch? > > Would a 2.0-testing branch solve this issue? We keep a pristine, tested > and approved 2.0 branch, and also have a testing branch where people can > commit stuff for others to verify/approve. Gets around the problem of > "head" code diverging from 2.0 (especially with register rewrites a > possible mooted change I think this could be an issue). I'm assuming > that its not too hard to pull changes between branches....? > > I must admit I'm not too familiar with how svn differs from cvs, so this > may not be practical with svn... >
It's practical, and I'm fine with that approach, with one constraint: That we allow changes to the 2.0 branch _only_ in the form of contiguous merges from the 2.0-testing branch. This ensures that every state of the 2.0 branch must be exactly equal to some state in the 2.0-testing branch. That implies no cherry-picking. -chris _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
