Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, 18 Aug 2008 at 10:11 +0200:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 03:39:49PM -0700, gstein_at_tigris.org wrote:
> > Author: gstein
> > Date: Sun Aug 17 15:39:48 2008
> > New Revision: 32515
> >
> > Log:
> > Another round of exploration on the API for the metadata/text-base
> > interface. There are three main sections now: manipulate the BASE tree,
> > perform mutation operations on the BASE/WORKING trees, and read state from
> > the BASE/WORKING trees.
>
> I'm wondering: Shouldn't these commits go to a feature branch?
>
+1
> Because:
>
> a) It will make the end result of your effort much easier to review.
>
> b) Potential problems caused by changes entering trunk affects *all*
> feature branches, because they regularly sync with trunk.
>
> c) A branch can optionally give the work you are currently doing a scope.
>
d) It will allow us to work on wc-ng without automatically including it
(in whatever shape it is then) in the next release.
e) It gives us a name (the branch's name) we can refer to when people
ask "Why haven't you written $feature yet?" :)
Daniel
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
> Stefan
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-08-18 10:31:12 CEST