stable vs. unstable trees

[Ulrich Czekalla]

The problem is what criteria do you use to declare a stable branch. You
can't just arbitrarily start a stable branch. Stable branches are cut
from releases. That is why we can say they are stable. Since our first
release won't be until 1.0 we should probably wait until then.

/Ulrich

On Fri, 2002-03-22 at 13:50, Michael Cardenas wrote:
> Ulrich Czekalla wrote:
> 
> >I think that was the plan. But I'm not sure this makes sense until we
> >reach 1.0
> >
> >/Ulrich
> >
> >On Fri, 2002-03-22 at 13:20, Michael Cardenas wrote:
> >
> >>To move forward from the discussion we've been having about supporting a 
> >>particular list of applications, I'd like to propose that we have a 
> >>stable and an unstable wine tree.
> >>
> >>In this way, we can have new patches from developers go into the 
> >>unstable tree, and once a release has been tested for a while and works 
> >>well for the list of applications with maintainers, then we move it to 
> >>the stable branch.
> >>
> 
> Release 1.0 could be a long long way off. I don't think we should wait until then. Even 0.9 is a long way off. 
> 
> Having more regression testing of applications will help us get to 0.9. If user's can't test one day becasue they can't compile, that means less testing. It also means we might lose that user as a tester all together. 
> 
> -- 
> michael cardenas
> lead windows compatibility engineer
> www.lindows.com
> 
> "Be the change you want to see in the world"
> -Mahatma Gandhi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>