I agree that branching is the best way to keep things going. That H300 battery
issue might be fixed two months from now, and if we have a stable branch we can
do a 3.0.xx release which is stable _and_ runs nicely on the H300.

Besides, hidden or hard-to-find bugs are sometimes easier to track down on the
unstable branch (that's what optimization people call "simulated annealing",
isn't it?), and can be incroporated easily in the stable branch (thank you, CVS).

fred

Kevin Everets wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:43:11PM -0400, Ray Lambert wrote:
>
>
>>I disagree with those calling for a beta release. The problem with a
>>beta release is that it implies that the code freeze must be kept on.
>>But the code freeze is the real problem here since it's holding up
>>development. OTOH, if you release a beta and lift the code freeze,
>>there's going to be a frenzy of activity and you lose any hope of making
>>a simple bug fix release. (Unless you branch the beta release... nasty
>>IMO).
>
>
> I don't understand why you think a branch is a nasty idea. If the
> real problem is the hold-up in development, then a branch makes the
> most sense. All the development that's being held up happens in the
> head, and the 3.0 branch takes all the bugfixes it needs up until
> release. Developers are quite capable of fixing bugs in one branch
> and adding features in another. I don't see a downside to that.
>
> Kevin.
>
Received on Tue May 16 15:05:11 2006