[gst-devel] branches

[Thomas Vander Stichele]

Hey David,

> > I'm personally inclined towards 1), because that means people will more 
> > likely make sure stable works well.  I think it's better to keep our good 
> > coders and bugfixers focused on HEAD :)
> 
> I agree.  GStreamer is too young to have a bug-fix-only track, as
> that would appropriately be called "1.0".  If 0.6 is just a bug-fix
> track, how long will it be before it feels old and lacking of
> features?  And how long will we be able to resist the urge to
> say "Just upgrade to 0.7" to fix a bug or feature request?

The problem is, probably, that we should really have a bugfix track that 
corresponds to gnome 2.2.

So, on the one hand we need a branch that has the fewest amount of fixes 
necessary, and on the other hand we need a hacking branch to appease our 
hackers :)

But I think it is necessary to have a bug-fix-only track.  The development 
branch will take new features, and we want to avoid that for now.

> However, if we choose to have two branches, I think it is important
> to keep API and ABI stability between the branches for as long as
> possible.

Yeah, very much so.  From now on, any API change needs a good deal of 
discussion I think.
At the very least, they should be wrapped in gstcompat.h as I did.  But 
even then it gets painful :)


> The release of 0.6.0 would be a good opportunity to fill out our
> test suite, so that we can assess whether or not a particular
> change causes a regression.  (And assign a "2 test writing"
> penalty for those who cause regressions.)

Yes, indeed.  That would be great.

Thomas

-- 

The Dave/Dina Project : future TV today ! - http://davedina.apestaart.org/
<-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*->
Zou een heel klein beetje oorlog soms niet beter kunnen zijn ?
<-*- thomas  (at) apestaart (dot) org -*->
URGent, the best radio on the Internet - 24/7 ! - http://urgent.rug.ac.be/