On Jan 26, 2007, at 2:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Is there any reason you think we need yet another branch? I think >> it's better to keep new development in trunk like we've been doing so >> far, another very similar branch will just be need more merging to be >> done and provide no benefit. >> > > Sorry for a quick branch, but I think there's many differences between > 1.0 and trunk, it takes time to merge all features/API changes between > them. And I'm not sure those differences are stable enough to be > introduced into 1.1 :-) I'm afraid we're not understanding each other very well... trunk *is* 1.1 and trunk is *not* stable yet. The stable branch ATM is 1.0 and that is the branch we shall make an effort to keep stable by only introducing bugfixes. I agree with Kevin when he said in an previous email in this thread: "If there isn't already 2.0 code on the trunk, I'd recommend using the trunk for 1.1 and then create a branch for the more experimental 2.0." So I said in a later email in the same thread: "Hmmm, I rather keep this at the trunk to get the most users and testers. Now that 1.0 is out and the 1.0 branch is the "untouchable" one the trunk is there to break it as much as you like " I think you should have more clearly expressed the reasons why you don't agree with that for discussion before making a new branch so we can define what should go where and have better coordination. The more parallel branches we have for the longer the time just makes it harder to keep bug fixes in sync IMO. Now that there's a 1.1 branch, coming from 1.0, where should we start the migration to CP3 which I proposed (again, in another email in this same thread) for 1.1? What should we implement in trunk? What shall we do with the experienatl fetaures we have been developing in the trunk? do we need the trunk?? We could also take a "Twisted" approach to branching where all new features/bug-fixes are implemented in a separate branch and then, after review, they are merged back into the trunk to keep the trunk stable. These branches try to have a short life-span in order to make merging easier. However, iI think we should discuss that before so developers are aware of the procedures... If you want a separate branch for experiemental features then it's fine with me if you create one, but label it something like "1.1-toolbox-exp" or something and branch the *trunk* (as the trunk *is* 1.1). However, it seems to me that the new branch should be labeled "1.0-toolbox-exp" as you branched from 1.0... What is the intention? Those new features cannot be merged back into 1.0 for all the reason we have outlined in this thread (docs, testing, feature freeze), Im confused. Maybe I'm missing something... please explain. Thanks, Alberto --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
