On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:30 PM, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote:
> Em sex 21 fev 2014, às 16:25:17, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu: >> on top of that, your idea to automatically "force" the latest stable on >> the "consumers" has a downside: it makes it actively hard to use the >> "oldest version that works" approach (which is a quite reasonable one to >> prevent accidentally requiring too new api). > > Stable contains "oldest version that works" by definition. Stuff shouldn't > land > in that branch unless it works. > > That means stuff shouldn't land in dev unless it works. Reality shows that this is not a realistic view. > It varies only on how stable it is. But that is true for any branch anyway, > except dev. The dev -> stable merge degrades the quality of what is in the stable branch drastically. So if you track stable, the quality of what you track can vary greatly. I suppose that is what Ossi means. With the current branching scheme you cannot track something that only gets “more stable”. -- Eike Ziller, Senior Software Engineer - Digia, Qt Digia Germany GmbH, Rudower Chaussee 13, D-12489 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi, Juha Varelius, Tuula Haataja Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B _______________________________________________ Releasing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing
