Working on two versions in parallel

[Mark Kretschmann]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Martin Aumueller <aumuell at reserv.at> wrote:
> 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.

I still don't see why "people are going focus on it". I certainly
wouldn't do it.

Are our developers children?

-- 
Mark Kretschmann
Amarok Developer
Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
www.kde.org - amarok.kde.org - www.fsfe.org