On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 9:36:46 AM UTC-5, Terry Brown wrote: 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 agree. > > 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. [big snip] > 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". > Many thanks for these comments. Since the last push about an hour ago, I've been blasting away on the code base, removing the switch. This creates the actual collapse in complexity. I've seen no hint of problems. And even if there were problems, it will be so much easier to solve them now that the whole v.tempBodyString mess is gone forever. 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.
