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

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 04:59:54PM +0000, Carl Worth wrote:
> I didn't advocate this in my original post, since I was trying to
> stake out a moderate position without revamping everything about how
> GRASS is being developed currently.

> The fact is, when a developer sits down to write a piece of code, it's
> impossible to predict a completion schedule, (especially the relative
> schedule compared to other developers --- some of who may not yet be
> on the project). 

> The answer is impossible to predict. Hence, it's very dangerous 
> to attach version numbers to things before they are released, 

This is why we did the most pragmatic thing first which is very
important for users: (Most user do not know open development
principles yet.)

	Open two version lines.
	We need this to so that people can decide between
	these principle differences.

> Instead of using a number like 5.1, (even an odd number), when doing
> parallel development, it seems it would be better to name the
> functionality being explored, (eg. database_backed_vector_engine or
> whatever). And, as I put forth in my previous mail, such named
> experimentation belongs in a branch rather than a separate module.

I agree with the idea: It is modularisation.
Usually I would agree with your proposal, too,
but I've come to know more about GRASS development. :)

Believe me CVS and branches are a bigger problem for GRASS developers
as you might think. I can understand this, because it is difficult
and can be cumbersome at times. It is only natural that people which
do not feel too comfortable with CVS do not proudly claim that they
haven't fully mastered it, too.

> So, those are my thoughts on where we should ideally be some day. 
> Plans for moving from where we are today may have other more
> pragmatic considerations, (though generally, when making big
> improvements -- even painful ones -- sooner is generally better than
> later).

Carl: 
It is great that you are willing to help.  
GRASS will certainly benefit.

As a project it is quite unique, we are matching a broader range
of people in a huge project. Users and developers.
We have to be careful.
-------------- 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/20020423/cb099910/attachment.bin