Re: stable vs. experimental archive

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 08:22AM, "Jaroslav Hajek" <address@hidden> 
> wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>following the conversation and my proposal
>>http://www.nabble.com/stable-branch-release-policy--was-Re%3A-Possible-bug-in-intersect--td23009036.html#a23072785
>>I would like to carry on the discussion about setting up a second
>>official "experimental" repository to resolve issues with development
>>& stability. I see the following options:
>>
>>1. create a secondary "experimental" repo on Savannah (if this can be done)
>>2. create an "experimental" branch in the savannah repo (and maybe
>>rename the "default" branch to "stable")
>>3. host the "experimental" repo elsewhere (TW's)
>>X. forget about the stable & experimental proposal, use a different
>>development/maintenance model
>>
>>could you please share your opinions/votes? if anyone votes for X.,
>>please describe your idea.
>>
>>I think 1. is clearly winner if it can be done. 2 and 3 are
>>compromises. My vote is 2 if 1 is not possible.
>>
>>cheers
>
> Avoding a divergence of repo's looks like the biggest potential problem.
>
> Regarding (1) and (2), would all changesets be applied to the experimental 
> and later (after thorough testing) be applied to the stable repo? ... Which 
> would essentially ensure that the two repo's do not diverge, of do you have 
> something else in mind?
>

That's exactly the intent. Allow the bleeding-edge development in a
public repo while having also a stable public repo that will be
reasonably stable for usage.

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz