From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: suvayu ali Subject: Re: Thanks for Lilypond export (and minor comments) Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:40:40 +0200 Message-ID: References: <9E8B5700-6008-4832-ACE1-BF471F129E0E@beds.ac.uk> <87sjqhdfn3.fsf@gnu.org> <874o2x1rfz.fsf@gmail.com> <87oc15nvv1.fsf@gnu.org> <17595.1310108424@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> <87k4bt3zt4.fsf@gnu.org> <20110708180256.4d84bf95@kuru.homelinux.net> <87mxgnn8qq.fsf@gnu.org> <20110710185058.2e29b13d@kuru.homelinux.net> <87wrfosqwq.fsf@gnu.org> <87mxgacv31.fsf@norang.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:46830) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qj9bn-0004pg-P6 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:41:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qj9bj-0001hL-6h for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:41:07 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:48611) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qj9bi-0001gu-6c for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:41:02 -0400 Received: by eyx24 with SMTP id 24so3975676eyx.19 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 05:41:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87mxgacv31.fsf@norang.ca> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Bernt Hansen Cc: Bastien , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Bernt Hansen wrote: > 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. =A0We 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. > Yes, this is the reason why in my original post I commented this model might be better suited for larger and more complicated projects (where a more stable master might be desirable). :) In any case, I had proposed the model just as another (remote) possibility. But I think we agreed the current model seems to work best right now. :) > Regards, > -- > Bernt Cheers, --=20 Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free.