On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote: > > I am rather convince that our current model (or the one we aim at, ie > > master in a releasable state at all time), but it does require people to > > accept that their latest newest shiny super cool feature is less > > important than shipping a finished product to our users, and therefor > > merge things that are reasonnably ready, for which the developers don't > > know of any major bugs. Maybe we should have a long discussion on the > > development workflow at the next sprint. > > It also means that we need to setup the system of branches we have > discussed before a couple of times already. We don't have that now, with > the result that we are still working as if in svn. Huh ? That is not true, we do work with branches. There are three branches that are missing from that system, "master-validated", "stable" and "stable- validated", the later two, mostly because we don't have any stable release... And "master-validated" because, at this point, there isn't a single revision of calligra that validate. And setting up a system where checking that there is not an increase of test regressions is way more complicated and time consuming than checking that the number of test failures == 0.
> And there is still the problem that branches don't get enough user testing > which is why we thought that Dmitry's strokes branch was pretty ok. > Several people have tested it, but not thoroughly enough. So krita isn't that broken or is it ? Do we have bug numbers that we can refer to, to make an evaluation ? -- Cyrille Berger Skott _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
