On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 03:14:22PM +0200, Frank de Lange wrote:
Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
Note: we use to work heavily on patches and commit only after they're stable or polished. All this with a view to keep a relatively stable CVS source tree to work with. This is different to the usual model, but it has its rewards. With regard to the keyboard navigation patch, it probably can be polished better when on CVS, so here my remarks to make the next version into the sources.
I agree with screening patches for bugs, but I think there should be a way for patches to get more exposure than they currently do. Many eyes make all bugs shallow, release early release often, rinse, repeat, etc. I test te patches, but I can only try so many sites and combinations. Several bugs have been found by users (eg. the LOCALE bug in GtkFrameset) which I probably would not have found.
Aren't these sorts of problems generally solved by using CVS branches? The main tree can remain stable, and the development code would be (marginally) easier to obtain and work with if it could be tracked via a CVS branch. Paul