Michael G Schwern writes: > In effect, instead of having one development track, we could have many > development tracks, each focused on a single feature, or small group > of features. This should make work easier, because on each track only > one thing is changing, so its easier to track down new bugs. I think we're talking different scenarios. This implies there already is code. I've only been talking about the first version of perl6, getting it out the door. The existing pumpkings have had plenty of experience with branches ("fork" is such a dirty word :-) in the source tree, and can give advice on how it works when you already have code. I view branches in this initial version as highly unlikely to be useful. We need to have a trunk before we can have branches. Nat
- Re: code repository Nathan Torkington
- Re: code repository Russ Allbery
- Re: code repository Nathan Torkington
- Re: code repository Michael G Schwern
- Re: code repository Peter Allen
- Re: code repository Michael G Schwern
- Re: code repository Nathan Torkington
- Re: code repository Michael G Schwern
- Re: code repository Nathan Torkington
- Re: code repository Michael G Schwern
- Re: code repository Nathan Torkington
- Re: code repository Michael G Schwern
- Re: code repository Dan Sugalski
- Re: code repository Dave Rolsky
- Re: code repository Piers Cawley
- Refactoring [was Re: code repo... Michael G Schwern
- Re: code repository Michael G Schwern
- Re: code repository Nathan Torkington
- Re: code repository Michael G Schwern
- Re: code repository Bradley M. Kuhn
- Re: code repository Stephen Zander