lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <>
Subject Re: Proposal about Version API "relaxation"
Date Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:30:12 GMT
On 4/25/10 8:42 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Mark Miller <
> <>> wrote:
>     That sounds good to me too.
> This doesn't sound good to me. It doesn't help anything, except Mark's
> paranoia about stable getting features.

I'm up for the other way as well - but yeah, both make me feel fuzzy.

Could you elaborate on "it doesn't help anything"? That's an interesting 
argument, but not very persuasive :) "It doesn't help anything other 
than easing Mark's paranoia" :)

> And it hinders development and
> community by creating a fake trunk.

Developing on multiple branches in general, hinders development - but 
personally, I didn't find the flex branch to be hindered that badly. I'm 
not too worried about the hinderence of committing to both branches at 
the same time either - when it makes sense its going to be fairly quick 
- merging *everything* from trunk to flex didn't really take that long. 
Many things will be much less work than the old system.

"fake trunk" depends on your definition of trunk. It has its downsides 
in comparison to keeping trunk extremely synced to stable, but it has 
its upsides as well. Patching to both branches makes me feel just as 
fuzzy as merging occasionally - take your pick.

> We could do the opposite instead, and merge a bunch of changes at once
> to stable, and not have a fake trunk like we did with flex.

Flex wasn't a fake trunk - it was a branch. Trunk was trunk. Its not an 
uncommon way to develop?

In my opinion, the way we did the Flex branch was very successful. So 
its easy to agree with using some of that formula.

> --
> Robert Muir
> <>

- Mark

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message