Re: Countdown to branch?

J.M. Maurer wrote:
>
> note: you can always create a branch to develop a new feature in, so you
> can start right away...!
>
> Marc

That is a real pain, and you of all people know it. We already have
ABIMATH branch for developing math and pango stuff, and your dbl units
branch, and HEAD, which we are suppossed to treat as STABLE. How many
more flipping braches do we need to get on with things? Really, we
should have a STABLE branch and HEAD branch; I refuse to maintain more
than two branches locally, or to have private branches in order to
develop stuff that we agreed is to go into 2.4 (I can just imagine the
pain when we try to merge half-a-dozen private HEADs).

I agree with Martin that the present situation is most unsatisfactory,
and is really not working. Weeks back I have started working on
pervasive fixes that cannot go into 2.2 in my local copy of the HEAD
(that is what HEAD is for!), and as a result I only fix bugs that do not
overlap with my new code (that excludes pretty much all bugs requiring
touching up PT files, which is most of the crashers) -- is that what the
present policy envisaged? I am fed up with this state of affairs, and am
not going to waste my time jumping through hoops to work around what I
consider bad branching policy. Do you guys want me to continue working
on fixing up 2.2? Then give me a STABLE!

Tomas,
peeved off and seriously tempted to tag and branch at this very moment
so he can commit stuff into head that belongs there.
Received on Tue Dec 28 11:40:37 2004