From: Bernt Hansen <email@example.com>
To: Bastien <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Thanks for Lilypond export (and minor comments)
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:29:22 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Bastien's message of "Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:50:13 +0200")
Bastien <email@example.com> writes:
> Hi Suvayu,
> thanks for sharing this suggestion and to make it so clear.
> I understand the model you describe and I see why it's appropriate for
> projects like "git" -- as IIUC, your proposal is very close to the one
> described by git's maintainer.
> - The latest git HEAD is stable enough so that many people live on it,
> and can send feedback on patches.
> It's all based on the idea "if it works, don't break it".
> But I'm open to any change if (and when) we need it.
Here's my take on Suvayu's proposal.
Personally I don't think it makes sense to keep separate topic branches
in the public git repo for major parts of org-mode functionality since
that would require merging the branches to master to get all of the
functionality. Topic branches (even for the git project) are generally
short-lived and for the developer's current set of patches until the
feature is merged into master. At that point the developer normally
deletes the topic branch.
Junio (the git maintainer) keeps topic branches in his git development
repo for active topics which are merged to maint, master, next, and pu
integration branches. Only the integration branches are normally pushed
to the public git repo that everyone clones. When a topic branch is
merged to maint, or master it is normally deleted.
Lots of people use org-mode for different aspects of the functionality
it provides - I doubt anyone uses *all* of the features available in
org-mode - I know I don't.
The main advantage I see of keeping the current model is that people
(including me) run directly from the tip of the master branch - I
usually update at least weekly. This has the advantage that users who
do this are testing the current development codebase and reporting
problems early as they are encountered. This helps to fix problems
early before it's time to create a new release.
With Suvayu's model you would only merge for the release and that means
the new master won't have the same level of testing exposure before a
release is created. We don't have full coverage of org-mode's features
in the ERT testing framework (far from it) and the more day-to-day
testing we get during development the better.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-19 12:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-07 16:38 Thanks for Lilypond export (and minor comments) Torsten Anders
2011-07-07 20:01 ` Bastien
2011-07-08 1:35 ` Eric Schulte
2011-07-08 6:13 ` Bastien
2011-07-08 7:00 ` Nick Dokos
2011-07-08 9:08 ` Bastien
2011-07-08 16:02 ` Suvayu Ali
2011-07-09 8:44 ` Bastien
2011-07-10 16:50 ` Suvayu Ali
2011-07-11 16:50 ` Bastien
2011-07-11 17:50 ` suvayu ali
2011-07-19 12:29 ` Bernt Hansen [this message]
2011-07-19 12:40 ` suvayu ali
2011-07-08 21:00 ` Achim Gratz
2011-07-09 8:46 ` Bastien
2011-07-08 7:56 ` Martyn Jago
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).