On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 06:05:55 -0700 (PDT) "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Early this morning I completed the first phase of the fix for bug 149: > Clones can revert changes made by git discard even with --no-cache > https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/issues/149 > > The question is, how to push the fixes? > > ===== Background > > The fixes are a grand revision of leoAtFile.py, Leo's code that reads > external files. This is some of the most important code in Leo. > > The new code is enabled by g.new_clone_test. This switch will be > False in the first push. > > All tests pass regardless of the switch, but it is possible that bugs > could have crept in even with the switch OFF. I rate the odds of > that as low, but non-zero. > > ===== Options > > My preference is simply to push what I have and let anyone who pulls > recent revs be test subjects :-) This will catch bugs as quickly as > possible. I think that's ok, on the one hand Leo has a fairly stable and safe "trunk", on the other hand people constantly pulling the bleeding edge should be aware that that's what they're doing. > The alternative would be to push to a new branch. I don't believe > much will be gained by this. TL;DR: I don't think there's any need for branching. I don't think people look at / test feature specific branches much. No history of that for Leo, maybe it happens a bit more for Inkscape, but I'm not sure. If Leo were to use branches I think it would have to be just two, "master" (stable) and "develop". develop would be like the current master, constant pushing of everything everyone's working on, and master would be updated from develop periodically (weekly?) from a point maybe 1-2 weeks in the past - someone would have to be paying attention to the presence or absence of problems on develop, and only syncing master with develop at points where develop had no known issues. Which is almost all the the time, for Leo. This is often cited as a branching workflow: http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ but I think that's too much for Leo. Even the two branch system above I'm not really advocating, seeing it means someone has more work to do. The difference between the proposed "stable master" above and just pulling "(current) master from two weeks ago", is that "two weeks ago" says nothing about issues or their absence, where the consciously synced develop->master would be a statement "here's a recent point on trunk with no known issues". Cheers -Terry > Your comments please. > > Edward > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
