On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Michael Natterer <mitch@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 14:47 -0400, Christopher Curtis wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Guillermo Espertino (Gez) < >> gespertino@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > El 19/09/12 10:43, Christopher Curtis escribió: >> > >> > Wouldn't it be better to keep the mainline in a near-releasable state >> > rather than letting things bit-rot in master, causing 3-year intervals >> > between releases? >> > >> > Moving it to master could mean that mode developers and contributors >> > realize its importance and they won't let it bitrot. >> > >> >> Well, as I haven't contributed code I'll step out after this comment, but I >> don't think that merging something that breaks common work flows, seriously >> degrades performance, and causes segmentation faults belongs in master. > > What makes you think we would merge something to master that would > definitely crash? We do use some common sense while we sit on our > fat asses and do nothing while the world waits for the next release. > > --mitch > I don't understand why did i trigger such reactions. I thought it's obvious that letting more testers to try out the new code would be only to the GIMPs benefit - and the best way to do it is to publish it in the gimp git repo. Whether to keep it in separate branch (obviously temporarily - I didn't mean forever) or merge right away into master - that should be decided upon by the devs. My idea was nothing unusual (many new GIMP features were grown initially in separate branches) - so what's the fuss? Regards, Tomasz B. _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
