Re: Slaughtering the sacred cow

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 8, 2010, 09:50 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTilzPoCBFEJiJBHubIjqcN7fQdI2Eg8tsGuiSfGZ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C0E0E98.6080806@drmicha.warpmail.net>

Hi,

Michael J Gruber wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> I don't pretend to have a perfect solution for this, but I'm wondering
> whether a longer-lived for-1.x.0 branch (with or without an extra pu,
> i.e. not rewinding itself [leaving that for the extra pu] or rewinding)
> would be feasible which gets everything from next-master-maint and which
> would also be a place to cook larger structural, backwards incompatible
> changes. An alternative would be to have a branch like that for a
> specific large topic (like one of the above) and focus on that for the
> upcoming release.

I'm relatively new to the list but from what I've seen, I think keeping a longer-lived branch that accepts less-than-complete patches is a good idea. Small patches that break backward compatibility are often criticized (often leading to rejection), while larger patches with the promise of showing the whole picture often tend to be ignored due to their sheer size.

-- Ram