On 03/29/2014 10:59 AM, David Gerard 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. >
Of course we have to watch out not to repeat past mistakes. But the branched approach is still the best way we can go about this. We're in a much better position now, there have been more commits, more people getting involved in LMMS, than probably ever before... We can do this. We just have to keep the roles of the branches clearly defined and separate. And keep the people interested. We should be careful not to repeat mistakes, but we also shouldn't let past failures chain us and prevent us from reaching for great things in the future. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
