[Qgis-developer] Moving forward with the raster transparency branch

[Martin Dobias]

On 9/19/07, Tim Sutton <tim at linfiniti.com> wrote:
>
> Yes I agree there is some trade off here - though in general if you
> merge trunk into your branch weekly or so this is not a great issue -
> unless you have large architectural changes in your branch. In general
> prefer that we have some small hassles merging stuff back to trunk and
> have a more conservative, stable trunk. Regards to DeeQGIS etc I wasnt
> really suggesting this. Rather to have a test build or two from
> branches for public testing before we do the merge. This is not
> dissimilar to other projects e.g. firefox creates test builds of the
> 3.0 branch while still developing onward in the stable 2.x branch.
> Anyway good lets discuss on an irc meeting :-)

We should be more conservative than before, but not too much - in my
opinion QGIS is not yet in a state which we could call "mature". So I
think that a good method of decisions for merging branches to trunk
would be that once developer(s) say that a branch is ready for merge,
two or more other devs or testers should try the changes (and maybe
review the code) and write down their observations and issues. If
there are not any major problems found, branch can be merged.

This is more flexible than doing releases for public testing - in fact
we don't have many active testers (that would file bug reports) so we
can't compare with a project like Firefox with hundreds of testers...

Martin