Karl Fogel wrote:
> But that's not the way a mature software project runs. We need to add
> the 1.5 features on the architecture we've got, because users cannot
> be expected to wait until the New World Order.
That was indeed one of the points of my first post ... except that there
seems to be some disagreement as to what "1.5 features" really are. IMHO
it's more important to correctly support merge-back than perfect
cherry-picking; I realise it's quite late in the day for that observation.
> Let's get 1.5 out the door, with merge-tracking, before we start
> getting starry-eyed about 2.0. I'd love to be more idealistic about
> architectural changes, but that's only possible when you don't have a
> huge installed base and lots of compatibility guarantees to keep.
>
I think we should be quite pragmatic here and stick to our promises --
all \000 of them. It's somewhat obvious that there must be a hassle-free
migration path from 1.x to 2.x, and "least-surprise" compatibility in
the most commonly used parts of the UI. Anything else is icing on the
cake, to be terminated without prejudice if it limits what we can do
with architectural changes.
>> "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam."
>>
>
> Eventually, but... "Lord, give me chastity and continence, but *not yet*."
>
I'll drink, etc., to that. :)
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 3 18:49:06 2007