Mikhail Fursov wrote: > On 10/31/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I guess that if we could get 5.0 complete, we'd could *then* branch for >> 6, but I don't think we'd want to serialize like that. > > I understand the dilemma. If we agree to have 1 stable, 1 'future' > and N suspended (old) branches as a rule we finally will tune our > process and will have almost no overhead to propagate changes from > one branch to another. The hell is when you do not have any stable > schema and create long living branches without reasons. > > The success of preprocessor's idea is also heavily depends how will > we use it. For example, what about "old versions"? Should we someday > move the code into separate branch or collect N-years old versions in > the same source?
IMO you need both VCM branches (for code maintenance streams) and preprocessor (for code 'shape' streams). Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
