On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 04:10, Greg Stein wrote:
> Think about it: you had to REVERT the change. What does that say? When was
> the last time that happend? Maybe during development it happened here and
> there, but it wasn't common. And now we're in the END GAME, and a commit
> went in which was Not Right and had to be reverted.
It has happened from time to time. It is rarely foreseen by the person
making the commit.
> Look: everybody agreed to staying on the trunk for the 1.0 release.
I apologize for contributing to confusion here, but... no, we didn't. I
only wanted to stabilize on the trunk because I thought it would take
six months (and even then, I wanted to branch at the end of that
period). We agreed to branch, because the stabilization period will be
short, but I think we're going to do that just after 0.35, which is
beta. Right now we're still in alpha.
> We can clean and fix and clean and fix and clean and fix for the next six
> damn years. How about we stop and get 1.0 out the door instead? If you're
> about to type 'svn commit' ask yourself: do we really need this? do our
> users need this for 1.0? is this an improvement so fantastic that it
> *must* go into the codebase? Does that APR -> svn_io change have to
> happen? Do we have to fix that error message? Does the comment *really*
> need to change? Most likely: no. Not at all.
We're still in alpha, and none of the changes you're talking about have
been destablizing. (Even Julian's didn't break anything, as far as I
know, although it certainly made the code unclean.)
> We're shooting for 1.0. Treat the trunk appropriately.
We're not really at that point yet. There are certainly a lot of
changes which wouldn't be appropriate for late alpha, but cleanups are
still fine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 10 16:59:19 2003