Patrik Stridvall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is your definition of a bug fix?
There is no strict definition. As you remarked, in this project just
about anything (even address space separation...) can be considered a
bug fix. It's more a subjective measure of how a given change risks
breaking something else. For instance, once we get close to 1.0, any
patch that doesn't fit on a single screen will be looked at with
extreme suspicion.
> Agreed. But exactly how should we maintain the stable version?
> There are serveral possibillities as I and Ove briefly discussed
> and in addition we could treat the core dlls and the non-core dlls
> diffrently.
The stable version is maintained as a CVS branch, where only bug fixes
are accepted. Once enough changes have been committed we can make
1.0.1, 1.0.2 etc. releases while development continues on the 1.1
(main) branch.
I'm not sure what you mean about core/non-core dlls; all dlls will be
part of the same release process (i.e. stabilized at the same time),
though of course changes to non-core dlls have a better chance of
being accepted in the stable release, simply because they can break
less things.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
