[torquedev] Proposed Patch
garrick at usc.edu
Fri Mar 12 12:03:38 MST 2010
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:28:31AM -0700, David Beer alleged:
> Hi all,
> We've had some discussion lately about what goes into the *-fixes branches of TORQUE. Where we last left off, it seems that a lot of people want to only include fixes in these branches. After discussing matters further here, we've decided that this might not be the best standard. We want to take more of the approach where well-tested features and enhancements can be added, as long as they don't change default behavior and are well-encapsulated. This approach would include us taking more steps to test and ensure that these features are well-encapsulated.
> Ultimately, we need to take more of this approach because there are some features that we, as a business, need to be able to deliver to our customers (who are part of the TORQUE community). It isn't very practical for us to release a new version (2.5, 2.6, 2.7 ...) every time that we need to deliver something to a customer. Additionally, this approach doesn't mean we'd go and backport everything to every version of TORQUE. We will still put most new features in the trunk. Certainly any new patch that can wait for a new version will wait. We just need to be able to do this in certain cases.
I whole-heartedly agree with this position.
The truth is that bugfixes aren't necessarily less risky than a new feature.
And moving up to a different branch just for 1 small feature is quite risky.
Everyone just needs to smart about checkins.
Garrick Staples, GNU/Linux HPCC SysAdmin
University of Southern California
Life is Good!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.supercluster.org/pipermail/torquedev/attachments/20100312/a0e58273/attachment.bin
More information about the torquedev