On 21.09.2010, 21:48 Guillaume wrote: > I can see a number of reasons to have a stable trunk (also used by > Wikimedia websites), that contains reviewed & tested code, along with a > development branch that /can/ be broken:
Things are currently reversed: stable (but outdated) branch and bleeding-edge trunk broken 99% of the time. It doesn't really matter how we do the development, this or other way around, the only problem here is how often does the stable code gets updated. > * Developers wouldn't be afraid to commit unfinished work to the > development branch fearing they're going to break trunk. Even unstable trunk/branch is supposed to be runnable at all time, for semi-finished features there are "private" branches. Several sites (notably, translatewiki.net) run off trunk, so even bleeding-edge code shouldn't contain random chunks. > * Wikimedia users would probably not mind encountering small bugs & > quirks if it's the downside of benefiting from more regular code > updates. You got it wrong: the less often the updates go live, the more bugs they contain due to the amount of untested code. Frequent updates actually mean less bugs. > That said, I guess there are obvious drawbacks I'm not seeing. The problem here is that our stable code is way *too* stable. Implementation details may vary. -- Best regards, Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]]) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
