On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Rob Mahurin <address@hidden> wrote:
On Apr 21, 2009, at 8:22 AM, Jaroslav Hajek 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.
I think at least in principle that the version control tools for branching
and merging should make (2) simpler than (1). But I haven't quite grokked
how this goes in mercurial, and I'm willing to be swayed the other way.
Cheers,
Rob
The biggest problem of (2) is that seems impossible to do a
"one-sided" merge between branches. We will frequently want to merge
the stable version to the experimental one (to get the patches from
stable), but not vice versa - that will happen much less frequently. I
think this is not possible with branches - a merge is "symmetric",
belonging to both branches.
In fact I think I should change my prefs to 1-3-2 due to this problem.