[GRASS5] Branching for 5.0.0 ahead

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 01:41:33PM +0100, Glynn Clements wrote:
> Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> 
> > You both have to make sure that the release branch only contains
> > useful code we want to release and that you know is stable.
> 
> I suggest that:
> 
> 1. Code which is permanently dead (e.g. because it has been
> superseded) should be removed from the trunk first.

Please go ahead.

> 2. Code which is currently broken, but which might reasonably be
> resurrected in the future, should be disabled (in
> src/CMD/lists/GRASS), but included in the source tarballs.

We will not fix bugs on it, thus I'm not sure if it should 
belong in the release branch. I'm pretty sure that it should not
go into the tarballs.

We can have another tar ball, like grass5.0.0-brokencode.tar.gz.
Even better would be a tarball of this from the dev cvs.

> The reasoning behind 2 is that a user who wants the program, and who
> has downloaded source code rather than binaries, might be inclined to
> have a go at getting the program working. 

> Having to retrieve the code
> from CVS might prove too much of an obstacle (particularly for users
> who can't use CVS due to a firewall).

In reality I do not believe that someone who will try to make a
broken source code run will find this a major obstable.
Additional tarballs would archieve both:
A cleaner separation and easy access to the source code of buggy modules.

	Bernhard
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20020422/d1518f43/attachment.bin