On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Juergen Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday, 29. April 2012 at 21:10, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> >> >> --- Sab 28/4/12, Rob Weir <[email protected]> ha scritto: >> >> ... >> >> > > >> > > All in all, I think we should focus on stability and >> > > not on features. >> > > >> > >> >> >> What I am meaning here is that our users should not expect >> false promises like adding an "import Visio documents >> feature" that simply doesn't work. Of course features >> from Symphony are considered already pretty stable. >> >> > So these (to me) sound more like items for a 3.5 than a >> > 3.4.1. >> > >> >> >> I think it all depends on how fast we plan to release 4.0. >> It looks likely that merging Symophony may be easy for the >> IBM guys, since symphony already updated theit base OOo, >> so a release may be fast and the 3.x branch may be short >> lived. (I don't know for sure though). >> >> I think a 3.x branch does make sense in any case but the >> rule should be clear: no direct commits to the stable >> branch: in general all changes go first to the trunk >> and are later merged. >> >> > > I don't think so, I would do it exactly in the other direction. Fixes for > critical issues or issues that are assigned for a 3.4.1 should be fixed on > the related stable branch and also merged into trunk. >
I thought Armin ran into some performance-related issues with merging. Do we know what direction that was, and what we need to do to avoid this problem in the future? -Rob > But we can discuss if we want code reviews for fixes going into the stable > branch before they are committed. > > Juergen > >> >> Pedro. >
