Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > I don't see the advantage of this. I'd rather do a 1.5.x branch and let > > people do some more adventourous development (or new features) in trunk. > > I am thinking of GUI development. Dialogs, context menu, etc...
I don't see why this cannot happen in the current scheme (albeit in a rather conservative way). > > If XML is > > too risky, that could be developped further in Lars' XML branch until > > people think it's ready for merging (as we did with unicode). > > I think this does not work: Lars' unicode branch was developed only by > him. Only when it was merged in trunk others stepped in to finish the > work. The main problem is that 3 branches is too much to keep track and > that is why I am proposing that we only keep two main branches. But then noone except the three developpers your mentioned will work on the devel branch. > > Therefore the stabilizing in the xml branch. And after the merge, all > > developpers are simply forced to deal (and help) with XML. I think that > > worked out quite well in the unicode case. > > Are you kidding? The unicode transition was pretty painful; a big part > of the work was done after the branch was merged. During this time only > three developers were really active. No, I'm not kidding. I think it worked out quite well, considering the big step in was and the huge changes it entailed. Without the merge, unicode would probably still not be ready. > >> The added benefit will be that a lot of long standing bug can and will > >> be fixed in the "stable" branch. > > > > That should be done nevertheless. > > This will not be done if we have to track three branches at the same time. I'll do my best to make it happen. My aim is that the stable branch should be usable for daily work at any time, not just at actual releases. Also note that the xml branch would just be intermediate. > Abdel. Jürgen
