X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=NBnlvngPRmt04chLT3q1sLJqY/JDLCyoADoxaR3SRWM=;
	b=ejfaTsOFP45/iFQR0g0ihj2+eEu0zzNejWj1yYoblxVyM0MSYHCY3w4e79Im7/yGjR
	VSfQ7ECxMmpNMNabXrw8BIaAGtalqktc6P4gH1/1FQkGyOHBOAqGyjkegtvk+SQa6D3h
	j14ZuVxMSeYZy2B3/YoB3QJNBKLTFmojzR1i4b4lrD9wbmtMlym7nDANuM60k2+cCE1S
	nFlRiBsAEownSEX+xaETi25fs7X48vd4P3diZFAWN1qRT4mthC0+n4V5kspZp+4lIJQ2
	0OBXWx1gYWWwHoXsvnZ22eU6QJzRqSwW1f0K/u3xi6L28qQMvUHuzx6bLEZF55ZIHMuM
	FxWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
	bh=NBnlvngPRmt04chLT3q1sLJqY/JDLCyoADoxaR3SRWM=;
	b=GcJ3ZSfYhV6tGXzv2aVovQUyIvq3AG8B6onhDL3kiuIzePkhRIXx9e3bKk0F2UOimO
	gawo3UTX6315yKW6iegqIpAElZVEVcQGkea7oua11gEEfRm3zEkHgzF15aPWpFXze/4g
	NwpSseuC+XaeIunZSwiLh4rlCSk1uQxEo6UasporKwx4PypRqP96OKzeD3X5jLEF1oJh
	rHNIztIZ3ZUapu6yqxPQotkAyv+HiYH1B09I1Bc0hZdh+UskMemsfd2fNHuS1sJ6mgjj
	o2B9PVpKnCxW1HELtIltXCoDxzJa+mhPc6hXGqX4cMH+LZ1cWI9eMN1+mDL5W6tTLx4O
	pw6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State:	ALoCoQk6Lpmrt1sVwzzwaOP6hbzDPhyY9TqKHC3WkCTxi89dPK8Bp2J12Q45/0J9Qa02gwAdA8FLf2au/bYIY25hQKj1le737A==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.194.173.233 with SMTP id bn9mr37819025wjc.1.1453324806338;
	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:20:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:	<20160120210035.3859.qmail@stuge.se>
References:	<20151223195846 DOT 8392 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<CAM2RGhS2bg=Rjuq6oEeOacV7PfUENy_jq7dxag=vWsUbdH6pAQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20151229155647 DOT GA3752 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<CAM2RGhSLND5+JSSj=1cUPUhzkTCK6d7NZ61QL-eViZRccY5LqA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20151229175222 DOT GD3752 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1512311656190 DOT 1475 AT newt>
	<96A12FC1-E09C-4D63-8346-5A62FDAB4228 AT sbcglobal DOT net>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1512311916190 DOT 12724 AT newt>
	<20160120173024 DOT GB16858 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<201601201903 DOT u0KJ3Lx4026878 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<20160120210035 DOT 3859 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:20:06 -0900
Message-ID:	<CAC4O8c-R4VOPj9BrFOkLzYZt06Db6K9yurgr0rPy9RhZCaVJtw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Releaseability of gEDA code
From:	"Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

--089e0122f088d340260529ca8c49
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Do we want to change how we do development?
>
> For the sake of simplicity I am a strong proponent of having master
> be releaseable at all times.
>

Then we need another branch unstable_master or something, because what you
propose means in practice that we aren't going to test each other's work
much before unleashing it on unsuspecting users.   Are you really likely to
go through and carefully try every branch?


> This requires more careful development, I think that's a good thing.
>

We want careful development AND test amongst ourselves before release.


> I find it acceptable to introduce some breakage in a random release,
> as long as it also gets fixed quickly, and if master is always
> releaseable then it's trivial to make a bugfix release.
>

I would rather my fellow devs hit the bug than a random user.

Britton

--089e0122f088d340260529ca8c49
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Peter Stuge (<a href=3D"mailto:peter@=
stuge.se">peter AT stuge DOT se</a>) [via <a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com"=
>geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>] <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:geda-us=
er AT delorie DOT com" target=3D"_blank">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>&gt;</span> wrot=
e:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">DJ Delorie wrote:<br>
&gt; Do we want to change how we do development?<br>
<br>
For the sake of simplicity I am a strong proponent of having master<br>
be releaseable at all times.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style=3D""=
>Then we need another branch unstable_master or something, because what you=
 propose means in practice that we aren&#39;t going to test each other&#39;=
s work much before unleashing it on unsuspecting users. =C2=A0 Are you real=
ly likely to go through and carefully try every branch? =C2=A0</div><div>=
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This requires more careful development, I think that&#39;s a good thing.<br=
></blockquote><div><br></div><div style=3D"">We want careful development AN=
D test amongst ourselves before release.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left:1ex">
I find it acceptable to introduce some breakage in a random release,<br>
as long as it also gets fixed quickly, and if master is always<br>
releaseable then it&#39;s trivial to make a bugfix release.<br></blockquote=
><div><br></div><div style=3D"">I would rather my fellow devs hit the bug t=
han a random user.</div><div style=3D""><br></div><div style=3D"">Britton</=
div><div>=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>

--089e0122f088d340260529ca8c49--

- Raw text -