Re: 2.14 release, or GOP now (part 2)

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote Tuesday, November 30, 2010 8:04 AM


> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 06:37:08AM -0700, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> > What about option 0 -- try to coordinate the resources we 
> > currently have
> > available on the critical issues?
>
> I would like that.  I'm a bit surprised to see so many people
> talking about branching a stable/2.14 -- I don't think that would
> solve anything.  I'm willing to try it as an experiment, but I
> really doubt that having a separate branch would encourage more
> people to spend more time on critical issues.

It wouldn't, but that wasn't the point of the
suggestion.  There's a history of new code not
working quite right due to bugs, oversights, etc
that only come to light a few weeks later.  These
then require input by experts to patch them up,
often over several weeks.  We don't want such
code in a stable release, nor do we want experts,
who might be working on critical problems, diverted
to sort out bugs in new code.  Branching 2.14 now
would prevent new, relatively untested, code going
into it, while not holding up development in 2.15.

Trevor