Re: What's cooking in git.git (Mar 2009, #01; Tue, 03)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mar 17, 2009, 07:51 UTC
Message-ID: <20090317075112.GC18475@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7vprgiysow.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 09:53:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> But in reality, contributors who had leftover topics on 'next' simply
> stopped working on their topics on 'next' without spending the freed up
> time on concentrating on 'master'.  In an ideal world, the choice would be
> between "git time on 'next'" vs "git time on 'master'", and closing 'next'
> was meant to force the choice, but instead the outcome became "less git
> time until 'next' reopens".

I think that is a reasonable argument for keeping 'next' open, and it seems to be borne out by this experiment (the post-1.6.2 period seemed no better or worse for bugfixes to me).

Now the only problem with keeping next open is that the maintainer misses out on the relative lull in activity during release freeze to catch up on his day job work. But if you can handle that, I'm certainly in no position to complain. :)

-Peff