On 04/16/2010 12:16 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com <mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com>> wrote:I'd be for this plan if I really thought the stable branch would get similar attention to the experimental branch - but I have some doubts about that. Its a fairly small dev community in comparison to other projects that do this ... Dev on the experimental latest greatest fun branch, or the more in the past, back compat hassle stable branch? Port most patches to two somewhat diverging code bases? If that was actually how things worked out, I'd be +1. I just wonder ... with the right framing I do think its possible though.But this is an open source project still right? So if you want more attention paid to the stable branch, put your patches where your mouth is (no offense).
I don't think that's how things should work. The project should be framed to guide devs towards what's best for everybody. Right now all devs work on a stable branch because we have policies that encourage that. We could also make policies that encourage every dev for himself crap development.
If no one wants to put new features in the back-compat hassle branch, well, then thats a sign that no one cares about it.
It's not a sign that users don't care about it. Lately I think you have taken the stance, users be damned, Lucene dev should just be geared towards devs. I'm not a fan of that kind of attitude when it comes to Lucene dev myself.
-- Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com <mailto:rcm...@gmail.com>
-- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
