Dave and Allen, You guys are obviously biased in your votes here - primarily because Roller is your job and you've been mandated to schedule the releases to more fit their work schedule. I don't blame you.
You guys are contributing the most code, and handling all release aspects - so I believe the decision is up to you. I'm in favor of whatever you guys advocate. If you are going to go through with this, it'd be nice to see a release schedule so we know when it's best to commit code. I'd like to integrate Acegi this week or next, but if there's a release coming out soon, I should probably wait. Matt On 8/9/05, Lance Lavandowska <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/9/05, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > (2) Strict non-breakage policies on the trunk. Successful build = full > > > test passage. > > > > i'm not sure i agree here. obviously we can't have ppl commiting code that > > is 25% complete or code that is completely broken, but who does that > > anyways? i think most of us develop a feature in our own workspace and > > only commit it when we believe it's reasonably complete. > > Heh, Allen (as a relatively late-comer) isn't familiar with the > Lavandowska "it's good enough" Principle. I've often committed code > that just-barely does what it is intended to do. Often it's provided > as a proof-of-concept, intended to elicit feedback and cooperation, > that gets pushed into production. > > Now this mostly came about when we didn't do branches (I think because > none of us were familiar/comfortable enough with them). Now that I've > trimmed my code contributions down to once-per-year I think there is > much less danger from the Lavandowska Principle. > > Lance >
