Again, this makes sense. Functional completenes is needed, but over a period, based on when we want to release. Identifying a couple of milestones before 1.0 for which we choose features to complete, and performance objectives can help. For each, we can add a bug-fix/stability period. Branching that happens at the start and end of each milestone automatically improves stability. In addition, as Etienne mentions, we should not hesitate to use branches to partition new platforms, large new development etc. For example GCv5 is effectively in a branch currently. It is not executed without a specific command line option and is not picked up by our regular test runs.
On 11/7/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just to add my 2c, in that I concur with this position. There has to be a judgement call on each of the new areas of functional improvement to decide whether it will further disrupt improved stability goals. In general it is preferable to be solid but functionally incomplete rather than vice versa. Regards, Tim
