[dev] Horde 5?

[Jan Schneider]

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

> Quoting Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at horde.org>:
>
>> 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.
>
> A couple of other things this would fix:
>
> * We wouldn't get the annoying merge conflicts in  
> CHANGES/package.xml when developing, since we would never be merging  
> those changes from the stable branch back to master.

Sure we would. You still want fixes from the stable branch in master,  
so you keep merging and causing conflicts.

> * I, for one, have been guilty of adding features to stable branches  
> before they are necessarily ready.  Most of this is due to the  
> overhead of setting up another environment (e.g. develop) to  
> correctly work on.  Considering that our goal is (or should) be to  
> provide bug-fixes/minor tweaking only for stable apps, immediately  
> branching the stable release into a topic branch reduces/eliminates  
> the desire to add new features to the stable branch and keeps this  
> sort of development on the master branch.  This was one aspect of  
> CVS development that I felt worked well - the addition of git  
> shouldn't change the theory behind this, it should just make it much  
> easier for us to merge and/or cherry-pick between the branches.

I don't see how those are related. Not implementing new features in  
the stable branch is a matter of discipline, not how you name branches.
And see my other mail. That didn't work well in CVS at all.

Jan.

-- 
The Horde Project
http://www.horde.org/