kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Jonatan Liljedahl <lijon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok, good to hear!

How about moving the new symbol inheritance stuff into such a feature
branch until it's working? (See
https://gitlab.com/kicad/code/kicad/issues/3658) I understand it would
mean less testing, but in its current state it's impossible to test or
work on anything else since kicad keeps crashing.

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM Jon Evans <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> We already have used temporary branches for major features in the past. I'm sure we'll continue to do this (through gitlab merge requests) where it makes sense - it's a lot of work to keep a feature branch in mergeable state.
>
> -Jon
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019, 10:16 Jonatan Liljedahl <lijon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Good points. However, I still think it might make sense to have at
>> least one more level of granularity, and use temporary branches for
>> major changes etc. so that they can be tested before being merged into
>> master. Simply, to make a merge request for big changes even if done
>> by one of the core developers. Going back to the 5.1 branch just to
>> have a non-crashing version of kicad is quite a leap.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 3:41 PM Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > We have discussed this before and given that very few users would ever
>> > test the development branch(es), I'm not going to change our branching
>> > policy.  I don't think it's unfair to ask users who are aware that the
>> > master branch (which is the KiCad development branch) is always in a
>> > state of flux to deal with a bit of temporary instability in exchange
>> > for some comprehensive testing of new features.  Most users seem willing
>> > to help with the testing in spite of some minor and sometimes some not
>> > so minor inconveniences.  I think have development branches would just
>> > slow down how quickly new feature bugs would get fixed.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Wayne
>> >
>> > On 12/11/19 9:21 AM, Jonatan Liljedahl wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps it would make sense to adopt something like this?
>> > > https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/#the-main-branches
>> > >
>> > > In short, all development happens on 'develop' branch and only when
>> > > this is stable it's merged back to 'master'. One doesn't have to
>> > > follow the above model strictly, for example a merge into master
>> > > doesn't need to mean "new version to be released".
>> > >
>> > > Another nice thing is that stuff that are work in progress and not yet
>> > > stable can live in a feature branch until it's stable enough to merge
>> > > into 'develop'. (For example the new symbol inheritance stuff, which
>> > > currently makes the master branch a bit unusable)
>> > >
>> > > Maybe some of this makes sense, and some not? Just some thoughts while
>> > > trying to find a point in the master branch history that doesn't crash
>> > > all the time :)
>> > >
>> > > Cheers
>> > >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> > Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> /Jonatan
>> http://kymatica.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp



-- 
/Jonatan
http://kymatica.com