On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
I think you'll receive more well-tested code if you allow custodians to commit patches to "master" earlier. But this necessarily means either being allowed to rebase the "master" branch or using a different branch for merging (which only contains code that has spent a fair amount of time in the master branch.)
IOW, one branch is for stuff that is ready to merge, the other is for the same _plus_ stuff that needs testing. I think using "master" for the latter will give the to-be-tested code much more exposure before it hits mainline, and that's IMO a good thing.
while i havent gotten into the game just yet, Haavard's scheme makes more sense to me and seems to address Wolfgang's desire for usable processor trees. the master branch is never rebased and contains all the latest and greatest (and stuff not ready for mainline). when a custodian wants Wolfgang to pull something, they prepare a non-master branch with cleaned up patches and all that and asks Wolfgang to pull on that branch. otherwise there's no way to get users to test out patches that should be ok but not ready just yet for mainline while at the sametime giving Wolfgang something sane to pull from. -mike