[dev] Horde 5?

[Michael M Slusarz]

Quoting Jan Schneider <jan at horde.org>:

> Zitat von Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at horde.org>:

>> These fixes were all bugfixes, but they didn't apply correctly to  
>> IMP 5.0.  And since I no longer run IMP 5.0, I would have never  
>> caught these issues save for the fact that one of my clients was  
>> noticing problems.  That was a fortunate occurrence, not the norm.
>
> Like I already mentioned in the earlier thread, you wouldn't have  
> had those conflicts if you had correctly fixed bugs in master and  
> then had them merged into develop with the regular merging. You  
> might still have to adapt the fixes to the develop branch, but 1)  
> you always have to adapt fixes anyway as soon as branches diverge  
> and 2) you wouldn't have broken the stable master branch, just the  
> development branch.

This is what I don't agree with though.  In my particular case, I was  
doing all development work in develop since I thought the code was  
going to be an improvement, not a bugfix.  But during the course of  
doing this work in the develop branch, I discovered a bunch of issues  
with the code as existing in the master branch.  Architecturally,  
things have changed so much that the back porting was annoying, and  
then the issue becomes when you merge back into the develop branch,  
things get even MORE broken and you run the risk of losing the  
original work when resolving the conflicts.  Maybe my brain is slow,  
but conflict resolution can be very confusing, so errors might slip  
through.

And it's always been the case (when using CVS) that we would implement  
things in HEAD, check that they were stable, and then merge back to  
the stable branch.  Not sure why you are saying that is incorrect  
practice now.

So maybe this is less an issue with repo setup than it was with our  
(incorrect, IMHO) decision to have the development work proceed on a  
topic branch.  What we should have done is branched the stable, H4.0  
branch and had development work performed on master.  Semantically,  
this makes the most sense: master is equivalent to CVS HEAD and is the  
most up-to-date, bleeding-edge version of the code.

michael

___________________________________
Michael Slusarz [slusarz at horde.org]