opencog-dev team mailing list archive

[Cassio Pennachin <cassio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

> While I didn't advocate a "no branch policy" I did recommend that main
> be seen as the unstable branch and that stable branches (including
> "release" branches) be created from main.  My reasoning is that the
> developers have stopped working together.  Instead, they work
> separately then try to integrate.  Working with others is seen as a
> pain, so the tendency is to simply not, and the integration gets
> delayed, and delayed, and delayed.
This is a good point, we need to have more frequent integration and  
killing of branches.  But I think the best way to foster this is just  
frequent communication.  If people gather on #opencog once a week and  
everyone updates everyone else on the status of their branches, we can  
probably get people to integrate at the right moment.
> I understand that an unstable branch is intimidating to some, as
> experimentation needs a stable base, but experimentation branches can
> be created from stable branches, and changes that show up on the
> unstable branch can be merged in as needed.  On the other hand,
> working on small changes is often best done without a branch, as
> integration is the focus, and not being able to tell if your changes
> will break some experimental branch means that you're offloading work
> onto the experimenters, and that also makes people reluctant to
> contribute.
I like an unstable branch, I just don't like it being the main branch,  
because then main would be constantly broken, and people who merge  
there don't have an incentive to make sure their changes don't break  
other code -- or, sometimes, wouldn't even be able to do that.  I feel  
quite strongly that main should not be broken at any time, and people  
can only merge there by ensuring their changes don't break anything.
Cassio