On 2007-08-02, Robert Ramey <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
I don't think anyone should merge from the trunk ever. Why interject a bunch of experimental code into my project. I have my hands full just trying to find and fix my own errors. The "trunk" in Vladimir's mail likely refers to the "stable" branch. If development proceeds on branches, there is no other trunk, so stable becomes the trunk. You'll have to merge from it periodically to get the latest changes. hmmm - we've been using "trunk" as its used in the current SVN load which contains the code form the CVS HEAD. This has been distinguished from "stable" which I believe that people have used to refer to what has been called RC_1_34.
With the fly-out branch approach for development, Peter is correct - there is no difference between "trunk" and "stable" (and "mainline"): you only need one, and that is what releases are generated (directly) from. It is a branch that is *always* expected to pass the full unit test suite, and any failures need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Or, of course, reverted. The only thing that will be needed on top of the development branches are "patch" branches for releases where *serious* bugs are found in a release, which weren't covered by the testing. (And yes, I have read Doug's post: I just think that fixing the process for library delivery and fixing the tools can be done/thought about in parallel.) phil -- change name before "@" to "phil" for email