On 9/23/19 5:00 PM, David Gow wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 2:52 PM shuah <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My concern with this approach is either one could outdated. is there a
reason continue in parallel mode. I would rathet see development happen
upstream so we don't have lot of code to be upstreamed sitting in an
experimental branch while upstream keeps moving. It is given that they
will diverge.
I definitely appreciate that, and the aim certainly is to have most
changes go straight upstream without passing through the
'experimental' branch first.
The real purpose of the 'experimental' branch is to have somewhere to
keep the mocking functionality before we're ready to upstream it.
Given that there are already people using the current version of the
mocking framework, we want to provide a smooth-ish path to upstream by
providing this branch which is at least closer to upstream than when
we are now (and that'll stay as close to upstream as possible through
regular rebasing, rather than staying 'stuck' on the older versions).
What I would like to see is a freeze on the experimental branch as soon
as KUnit goes into mainline (which is really at the end of this week)
Start draining the experimental branch with a goal to get all everything
currently staged there mainlined.
Please define clear sunset date for the experimental branch. Without
that we are looking at a lot of pain in the future.
thanks,
-- Shuah
