--On Friday, December 13, 2002 8:34 AM -0600 Karl Fogel
<kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net> wrote:
> Sure, but if it's going to go even on a branch, it still needs a log
> message and documentation. The branch isn't useful to others unless
> meets the same sandbox standards as the rest of Subversion.
Well, my point is that the branch shouldn't necessarily always have
to pass 'make check' or be as stable. It'd be under development.
You would have to opt-in in order to use this.
> 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.
That's fair. I can write a log message based on what I have, but I
do realize that some of the code needs to be further tweaked. I just
don't want to do that locally. I could also write a rough design for
inclusion into 'notes,' if that makes people happy.
> There's no point having a bunch of code dumped into the repository
> if only one or two people know what state it's in and how to use
> it. It has to be consumable by everyone.
I would hope that's not the case with this particular feature. I'd
like to get it merged into the trunk, but I'd be lying if I said that
should happen right now.
I want to get this out of my local working copy and start to try to
get other people to give me feedback and assistance. I can't see a
good way to this other than creating a branch. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 13 18:55:57 2002