Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:
> Hmmm, I guess we haven't really had this discussion yet. This is as
> good a time as any... What I'm proposing is a basic policy on
> experimental branches in general:
>
> Experimental branches are great as long as they're conducted the
> same way as trunk development -- with the exception that they don't
> necessarily have to build and pass 'make check' at all times (the
> group maintaining the branch can decide about that; I mean, there's
> a reason it's called "experimental"! :-) ). But as far as log
> messages and documentation go, branches should be as thorough as
> trunk, because people rely on that information to follow branch
> development.
+1, perhaps with the addition of something that states that some
design document or initial (properly formatted) patch should always
accompany the creation of an experimental branch. I want to know that
people are actually making branches with a plan in mind, not just
floundering about in the repository while they're "still thinking
about how to do it".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 13 16:28:09 2002