[GRASS5] Using CVS to manage "experimental" vs. "stable" trees

[Glynn Clements]

Bernhard Reiter wrote:

> And technically it is easy, just declare check out the
> grass51 version you want and create a new stable tree, called grass52.
> No need for renaming.

One problem with multiple repositories is that you don't get the same
degree of information on the revision history as you do with branches. 
E.g. you can do "cvs diff" between branches, but not between
repositories.

> On the other hand, directory reorganisation within a tree 
> with CVS is difficult, we had to use subversion or other revision
> control system for this.

Directory reorganisation isn't necessarily difficult; it just destroys
the revision history. "Renaming" in CVS equates to deleting the old
file and creating a new file (which just happens to be identical to
the old file)..

Unfortunately, sometimes mistakes are made, and either you correct
them, or you have to live with them for eternity. If you are going to
correct them, it's better to do it sooner rather than later.

> > However, there have also been many features proposed on this list that
> > have received a reaction of "save that for grass51". I have proposed
> > several of these features myself, and discovered that I couldn't
> > directly implement them in the grass51 tree since not all of GRASS
> > exists there yet, (much of it is simply copied over from the stable
> > tree during compilation).
> 
> We hope to get developers to help us to get the stable release out.

Once you "freeze" the code (i.e. restrict changes to bug fixes), the
process is driven by the rate at which bugs can be identified. At
which point, the problem isn't likely to be the overall amount of
developer time available, but being able to find a suitable developer
who understands the code in question.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn.clements at virgin.net>