cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From giacomo <giac...@apache.org>
Subject RE: FW: patch politics
Date Sat, 15 Dec 2001 20:01:21 GMT
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: giacomo [mailto:giacomo@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 11:17 AM
> > To: cocoon-Dev
> > Subject: Re: FW: patch politics
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2001, Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I think that issue is interesting for all of
> > > us. Maybe some of you have additional
> > > comments.
> > >
> > >   Gerhard
> > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:vadim.gritsenko@verizon.net]
> > > >Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 3:06 AM
> > > >To: 'Gerhard Froehlich'
> > > >Subject: RE: patch politics
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >Good question. Sometimes I also think why people submitting things
> only
> > > >into HEAD, and not into branch. I think that:
> > > >
> > > >1. If this is a bug fix - _definitely_ should go to both branches,
> > > >2. If something is totally new (like DBXML: protocol or Lucene
> search) -
> > > >it for sure goes into HEAD,
> > > >3. Something in between, but does not breaks backward compatibility
> -
> > > >_may_ go into both (and may not),
> > > >4. Everything else - I guess vote might be required here, so first
> it
> > > >may go into HEAD, and then be VOTEd in order to sync this into
> branch.
> > > >Another way is to commit changes and wait for reaction ;)
> > > >
> > > >Also, things like code cleanup or performance improvements should
> go to
> > > >both branches.
> >
> > Well, I'll clean up the HEAD branch slowly but I don't have the time
> to
> > do it in the 2.0 branch as well. I'd suggest to move the head to
> > release quality and only patch the 2.0 branch for bugs. This way we
> can
> > get rid of the 2.0 branch sooner than later (which was always the
> > proposed way to go IIRC).
>
> There is one problem with going with HEAD only: HEAD contains some
> experimental/unverified/new code, and people always will come with
> something new (so this situation won't change with time), and in
> contrast with that, branch gets only stable/voted code.

Sorry, but there is a scratchpad area where such code can live. It has
to be moved there if that code is not stable enough.

Giacomo

>
> Vadim
>
> >
> > Giacomo
> >
> > > >
> > > >This is my suggestions - others could have other opinions.
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Gerhard Froehlich [mailto:g-froehlich@gmx.de]
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 8:36 PM
> > > >> To: vadim.gritsenko@verizon.net
> > > >> Subject: patch politics
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Vadim,
> > > >> how do you decide if a patch belong in the HEAD branch
> > > >> or in both??
> > > >>
> > > >> TIA
> > > >>   Gerhard
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --------------------------
> > > >> Hey! It compiles! Ship it!
> > > >> --------------------------
> > > >
> > > >:)))
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Vadim
> > > >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message