On 1/20/06, Jeff Kowalczyk <jtk@...36...> wrote:
Subversion has a reputation for much improved for branching and merging, so long- and short-lived branches may be more usable for inkscape development than they were under CVS.
Experience shows that it's very difficult to convince enough people to _use_ a branch. This makes the whole idea meaningless: if only the original author uses his branch in real design work (which is the ONLY way to find bugs), he could just as well not commit it at all, using his local tree to test the new patch until he feels it's stable enough for the trunk.
I'm not sure if svn makes it sufficiently easier for people to _run_ a branch for this situation to change.
Besides, often it's hard to say which changes are more dangerous. For example Carl's change, AFAIK, was supposed to be mere refactoring.
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org