On Wednesday 25 April 2007 5:11:45 pm Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > Side note: That's exactly what I was proposing for 1.5.x: > - main development in 1.5.x: bug fixing, dialogs update, etc. No file > format change. > - XML development in 1.6.0svn.
Funny I remember Lars proposing this in the past. :-) > This would mean that 1.6.0svn will have to be synchronized against > 1.5.xsvn regularly. As 1.6 is mainly about XML, I reckon this would be > easy. The great benefit of this scheme is that you have a stable > platform for development. What I propose is that changes in 1.6 should be committed in such a state where they are more or less complete. The benchmark for the commits is that the trunk should always be in an almost stable state most of the time. If not it is difficult to find the culprit for the instability and testing becomes very difficult. As an example, all the changes that we have been applying recently in svn are only possible because we have reached a semi-stable state. If something goes wrong we have an idea what was the possible cause. I think that the keyword in this development model is "focus". More than insisting in a single line of attack we should consider few areas non-overlapping and with a motivated group of developers. For example most of the time the frontend and the latex/docbook export are unrelated, so there is no reason to exclude developments in both areas. > Abdel. -- José Abílio
