[ODE] From unstable to trunk...

[J. Perkins]

On 7/1/05, gl <gl at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Right, but it seems to me that in practice there is no positive action on
> patches on the UNSTABLE branch either.  What I was suggesting was
> force-feeding patches to people on the main trunk, to force a response
> either way.  If no response is forthcoming, the patch is most likely OK.
> This could mitigated by requiring patch creators to #ifdef their patches so
> they can easily be disabled if need be.

I'm okay with this approach. I've been avoiding patches because I
don't want to deviate too far from the main line, I'd rather just but
them in.

The other alternative, which may be inevitable at this point, is that
UNSTABLE becomes the default branch for most people. I'm considering
switching at my next sync.

FYI, Jon has asked me to forget about the Subversion move. If anyone
has an opinion one way or the other, we can discuss it off the list.

Jason