Re: [GT] Branches of the development tree

["João Costa" <joaocosta AT zonalivre.org>]

I have a few patches here, about removing the dependency on libXML
when it's not needed which i definitely feel need further testing, as
they modify a part of GT I don't really use ( backtesting ).

I'll submit those type of patches to exp first, wait for feedback, but
if no one has time to use it just go ahead and patch against HEAD as
well after some time (maybe a week or two ?).

In the meantime I'm also updating exp with some of the patches i've
already applied against HEAD in the last few weeks.

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Weigert, Thomas <weigert
AT
mst.edu> wrote:
> João,
>
> I think this is a situation where your good judgment has to apply.
>
> The exp branch was created as Robert likes to let larger changes stew in the community for a while. While Robert likes sending out patches in the hope somebody tries them, I prefer to have a running branch which has these patches applied, for people to try. That way, I find it easier to keep the patches in synch and not loose them. I personally work against the exp branch.
>
> I believe the process should be as follows:
>
> 1. patches that are fixes to defects in GT and where there is a reasonable confidence that they are correct should be applied to HEAD
> 2. patches that represent proposals for change, are extensive new additions to GT, or are in need of further testing should be applied to the exp branch or sent out to the list.
>
> My suggestion is that you decide which category your patch fits in and apply it accordingly.
>
> Cheers, Th.
>
>
> João Costa wrote:
>
>        I noticed Thomas created an exp branch with the intention of using it
>        for trying out new stuff, while keeping the HEAD branch stable.
>
>        Ideally we would do use this method, there would be people testing
>        things under exp and every so often we'd do a new release and merge
>        that into head.
>
>        Unfortunately we just don't have an active enough community in GT, and
>        if things only get patched in the exp branch them most likely only the
>        author will use it until it gets merged to HEAD.
>
>          I therefore feel tempted to apply the patches i've been sending in
>        the HEAD branch directly.