Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of carlos.rovira@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.161.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: carlos.rovira@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CC4ED733.4470B%aharui@adobe.com>
References: 
 <CAMFKFRgwB45bcZ4hxoVmH4K747YpSzDhF5P6qGvs0ttUgz+BjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC4ED733.4470B%aharui@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:21:03 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAMFKFRjq6Q0KRYXooV3UthENX4HO91Up7CTU49h9nmnpW9s1jw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Re: [VOTE] Branching Strategy and SCM
From: Carlos Rovira <carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf305639ab8685c304c72df24d

--20cf305639ab8685c304c72df24d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>
> OK, but even modifications can be done without branching, right?  The key
> is
> not to check things into "develop" that breaks things.
>
> Other than Git handles branching better, the technical/logistical reasons
> for branching are the same in all SCMs, correct?
>
>
Alex, that's ok, and is up to you to take that kind of decission. It's like
to make to make a huge flex/java ERP with notepad. It can be done, but it
will very hard in the day-by-day basis. Better to choose directly the
better IDE to go as fast as possible.

Here's the same, you hardly will go the way to refactor UIComponent all
alone and not commit until work is done, because, you know, although that's
possible, it's highly improbable and you will need in some step to share
and test with other people, discuss code and so on.

One thing different in Apache from the work done in Adobe until this
release is that Flex 2.x, 3.x and 4.x was done internaly and only released
when the overall plan was complete. Now the playground is different and
people can share (commit in SVN) some unfinished work and then let the
trunk unstable until other people takes over this work to fix it.

This seems for me an horrible scenario and Git could avoid that because
PPMC will be pushing only stable features into develop from all pull
request ensuring "develop" and then "master" are always stable.


--=20
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnolog=EDa
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 35 57 77
<http://www.codeoscopic.com>
CODEOSCOPIC S.A. <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
Avd. del General Per=F3n, 32
Planta 10, Puertas P-Q
28020 Madrid

--20cf305639ab8685c304c72df24d--