On 9/8/07, Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@red-bean.com> wrote:
> On 9/8/07, Charles Acknin <charlesacknin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh yeah sure! I couldn't be more happy to merge this back to trunk.
> > It doesn't break anything since it's a feature we *add* to Subversion.
> > I just didn't know when -- usually in Subversion -- it's decided a
> > branch can be merged to trunk. I assumed it needed some testing
> > before. But yeah, if it's not going to get much testing when
> > remaining in a branch, if nobody objects let's go for it.
>
> We do all our development work on trunk, not on branches. We only
> keep branches around for two reasons:
>
> * long-term maintenance branches, from which we do releases
>
> * short-term feature branches, which exist only long enough not to
> "mess up" everyone else working on the trunk.
>
> It's clear that your work is no longer going to mess anyone else up,
> so please merge it to trunk. :-)
Is it relevant that Charles only has partial commit access, which
means we're comfortable with letting him touch any file on his branch
which he deems relevant to svnpatch work, but not necessarily the same
on trunk? (Most of our partial commit categories are more clearly
defined to be specific physical portions of the tree, but svnpatch is
pervasive throughout various parts of the main source directory.)
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser_at_davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Sep 8 22:10:53 2007