@david Agreed there, I wonder if toby should do a merge of what we have in the stable 1.0 branch in terms of fixes so far, Also another question would be do we have a time line for a 1.0.1 release?
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 9:59 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > -- Jonathan Aquilina
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
