On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Colin Guthrie<gmane at colin.guthr.ie> wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and Felipe Contreras at 09/06/09 21:27 did gyre and gimble: >> >> See it from the point of view of someone who doesn't know what's the >> latest version of PA (newbie, or someone who hasn't followed the >> project in a while); it's much easier to just checkout "stable". > > I don't think a single "stable" branch is appropriate. For one, it's not > really making the best use of git here. To keep a stable branch, we would > essentially have to recreate it when a new release is done, causing people > to need forced updates, no fast forwarding etc. You could rebase the branch > at release time I guess but that may mean making commits out of order and > having to resolve merge conflicts again (e.g. if you had to tweak a > cherry-pick to the stable branch). This is dangerous as could result in the > code being slightly different. So no a single "stable" branch is not, IMO, a > good idea. What do you propose instead? Have a "$version-stable" branch for each and every release? That doesn't scale, the repository will be polluted with branches that nobody use any more. And it is a good use of git, remember that a branch is just a pointer, and the pointer can jump from one commit to a complete unrelated one, there's nothing wrong with that. I thought of another use-case, I do have a "stable" branch in most of the projects I follow, so when 0.9.16 is released I would have to do: git reset --hard origin/0.9.16-stable It would be much easier to do: git reset --hard origin/stable > Pulse isn't really something that is entirely newbie friendly anyway - it's > got to be integrated fairly deeply at the distro level for it to work nicely > and that will likely be most new users route to playing with pulse. > > If you're at the stage of checking out the source code from git, you're way > beyond newbie status and can spend the extra 10 seconds looking at the > various branches and deciding for yourself what one to work with. Yes, looking for the latest released version, and finding the corresponding -stable branch might take a couple of seconds so it's not a big deal, but still, "stable" would be clearer and faster. I still haven't heard an advantage of "$version-stable" over "stable". Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
