On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 07:18:05AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Em seg 24 fev 2014, às 08:07:13, Ziller Eike escreveu: > > 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. > you can do the same with more branches. the one downside is that you need to keep a merge on top if you want to use both the changes based on an older and a newer branch at the same time.
> 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. > most people developing for dev actually do it *on* dev. also, i think it's a pretty safe bet that *no-one* else has a backlog of anything near 100 local patches. ;) nobody else can track that amount of patches. nobody can even use your script (which is the reason why i didn't want it in the current form - it's way too plumbing-level to be of any use to mere mortals. heck, even you occasionally botch it). _______________________________________________ Releasing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/releasing
