Tobiasz is worried because this is what happened before - the 0.5.x branch was cool-but-unusable, and was eventually abandoned; 1.0 descends from the 0.4.x branch, which people actually used and tested and was where all the action happened.
So I'd just take it as a note of caution :-) Something like: 1.0 stable branch just for serious bugs (crashers, etc); master for all new work, *but* keep master usable at all times (by the adventurous) as otherwise it will bitrot; experimental work in smaller branches, merge as soon as usable. - d. On 29 March 2014 08:28, Jonathan Aquilina <[email protected]> wrote: > I disagree. if you only have a single branch you can easily introduce new > regressions and bugs on something that is already quite usable. the 1.0 > branch is now used for bug fixing until we release 1.1. as well any bug > fixes in 1.0 also get applied and or backported to the master branch, or the > 1.0 branch can be merged back with the master branch. It is really up to > tony to decide on this but, having multiple branches is a good thing though. > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Tobiasz Karoń <[email protected]> wrote: >> Isn't this going to lead us to the same place where we've been before? >> When the dev branch is super cool yet unusable and the stable branch isn't >> moving at all? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
