Working on two versions in parallel

[Martin Aumueller]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 15:27, Dan Meltzer <parallelgrapefruit at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Mark Kretschmann <kretschmann at kde.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Lydia Pintscher <lydia at kde.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 13:09, Rick W. Chen <stuffcorpse at archlinux.us> wrote:
>>>> So, shifting our work flow will require some effort in keeping
>>>> everything in the right place, because everyone has commit access. But
>>>> having a proper structure for development is beneficial for QA, which is
>>>> an area that should be improved upon if possible.
>>>
>>> As discussed before in this thread, QA is exactly the reason we should
>>> not do this imho.
>>
>> The problem is, whether it's "officially" wanted or not, it's being
>> done anyway, because that's a Git'sie workflow. I'm probably not the
>> only one who had a "2.2.3" branch around before 2.2.2 was tagged (I
>> did commit minor stuff in there, mostly string changes).
>>
>> And the more people have such things around, the more weird it gets to
>> coordinate and merge all this after tagging. So we might as well have
>> an official branch to alleviate this chaos a bit.
>
> Except if it's official, people are going to focus on it, and this
> will cause much more chaos.

Exactly. Now everyone probably has master + his own local changes.
This means that master (and very close variations of it) is used and
tested by many people. In my opinion the current workflow is a good
thing because of this.

Martin

>>
>> --
>> Mark Kretschmann
>> Amarok Developer
>> Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
>> www.kde.org - amarok.kde.org - www.fsfe.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Amarok-devel mailing list
>> Amarok-devel at kde.org
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok-devel mailing list
> Amarok-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
>