Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 08:07:13, Ziller Eike escreveu: > 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”.
But that removes the branch that is "stable enough". In the past year and a half, I've tracked dev for less than 2 months in total. Everything else I do is on top of stable, even if it gets submitted to dev. Now, I can easily change branches, but it's a task I currently don't have. My point is that there probably are other people out there who benefit from having this branch too. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Releasing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing
