On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 01:06:35PM +0200, Knut Arne Bj?rndal wrote: > If I've understood you correctly you want to setup a stable branch > where no commits go in before they have been tested by several > people. This kind of setup is more pain than it's worth because most > changes are small, simple and everyone is fairly sure it's going to > work. > > What we have recently had is a very big cleanup and reorganization of > code going on in trunk, what I'd rather see is for these kind of > changes to be done in a separate branch. > > There is a small but important difference between these setups, in > that only changes that we think might cause trouble are tested in this > way. > > If you want a super-stable branch with loads of testing then go right > ahead, it's not hard to get svn access, but don't expect every > developer to use loads of time and energy getting the code he's > written into some stable branch.
I haven't worked it out yet. For now, I will freeze the "stable" as it is and do development in _unstable Once in a while (about weekly?) I plan copying it over if it proves to be stable. I was thinking that regular development would happen in _unstable, yes. I have little experience in branching with multiple developers, so I appreciate feedback and recommendations. spaetz _______________________________________________ Tilesathome mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tilesathome
