Re: Proposal: Graphics2D rewrite branch

[Mark Wielaard]

On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 18:02 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <address@hidden> writes:
> Mark> And you should not see it as "private" or "may be broken at random
> Mark> times". It should be as much as possible something that you work with a
> Mark> team on (and if there is no team - yet - then there is nothing as bad as
> Mark> having a completely broken build to get others to help out).
> 
> Actually, I think it is reasonable to have a "may be broken" branch.
> In fact this is one of the main reasons for having a branch -- if you
> can keep stuff building and working, in many cases you won't need a
> branch at all.

Yeah, this may be a bit too strong. I meant it as a strong warning that
the branch cannot be a dumping ground for some code that isn't even
supposed to work. I'll reformulate that as:

@item A branch should not be seen as ``private'' or
``may be completely broken''. It should be as much as possible
something that you work on with a team (and if there is no team - yet
- then there is nothing as bad as having a completely broken build to
get others to help out). There can of course be occasional breakage, but
it should be planned and explained. And you can certainly have a rule
like ``please ask me before committing to this branch''.

Let me know if that still doesn't capture the spirit.

Cheers,

Mark

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part