On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:35 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: ... >>So: thoughts? Does this make sense as a policy change for facilitating >>the development of major new features or consolidating behavior- >>changing fixes into easier-to-understand units? > > So, to summarize, we could stage our code using more than just two > branches (trunk + feature branch) in order to make larger changes easier > to understand for reviewers while still making each change to trunk a > coherent unit. >
FWIW, we've been doing this on Launchpad for some years and it works out well. As a rule, we don't have the final "sanity check" review, since we have robot minions that check for conflicts and that the tests pass. > This sounds fine to me. We need to work out some details (like, for > example, I'm not sure trying to do this using subversion is such a good > idea, and we want the process to be documented somewhere so we don't > have a repeat of #886), but I think we should try it and see what > happens. > Using a DVCS would make it much easier. For example, Bazaar has plugins like loom and pipeline that are designed to manage a stack of changes. Also, +1 on the documentation. jml _______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list [email protected] http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
