Ben Collins-Sussman <email@example.com> writes:
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > I'm not interested in branching. A branch only makes sense when
> > development by Sally on a given source file is expected to clash so
> > often with Harry's other work
> That's not the "only" use-case of branches. The other use-case is the
> whole idea of maintaining both 'stable' and 'development' lines of
The use-case you've cited is no different than what I listed. You
maintain stable vs. development is when you feel the development is
unstable, that is, when it adversely affects (even if "adversely" just
means "hasn't had an adequate degree of reliability testing") the rest
of the project. :-)
> > My vote is for keeping things exactly as they are today, with the
> > optional addition (by someone other than me) of a more regular posting
> > of perhaps just the HTML version of the work-in-progress. Then Ben,
> > Fitz, and I can decide on good places to snapshot the book to replace
> > the less-often-updated milestone PDF, HTML and PS versions.
> I guess, then, that I'm going to keep my patches to myself for a
> loooong time. I write in disorganized pieces, I move things around,
> make multiple passes, and so on. In the status quo, I have to be sure
> to commit only things that keep the book in a perfectly coherent
> state. I'd much rather commit early and often, but I don't want to
> "break" the readability of the book.
This was the crucial information I was lacking from an advocate of the
branch. I write in chunks, taking a big-picture view of the topics,
re-organizing, and then fleshing out and fine-tuning. A branch would
just be an extra--but minor--annoyance in my writing process. If
branching will help your writing process, though, let's go for it!
Actually, it doesn't even matter. If you want to branch, you can
branch -- there's nothing requiring Fitz and I (or anyone else) to
work on the branch, if *we* tend to commit up only when we reach a
> The real issue here, I guess, is deciding what it exactly what it
> means to present 'stability' to the world. Does it mean
> 1. the book's source code is coherent?, or
> 2. the compiled versions published on the web site are coherent?
I'd say 1. That's the user-friendliest way.
So, make the branch, and begin your work there. If Fitz or myself
find that we are having trouble keeping our chapters coherent while
editing, we can join you on that branch.
[ Why can't I shake this mental picture of primates deciding which
limb to dangle from? ]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Wed Nov 6 18:14:29 2002