[ODE] From unstable to trunk...

[Darío Mariani]

  I use the UNSTABLE branch from quite some time now, I did not stress
test the engine but seems to work fine. Let me remind you of an idea I
threw some time ago, I think that what we need is to add more testing
so you have a first quality test for patches.

        Darío

On 7/1/05, J. Perkins <starkos at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ODE mailing list
> ODE at q12.org
> http://q12.org/mailman/listinfo/ode
>