[Lazarus] Release schedule and policy

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:

> Op 2010-10-25 10:27, Marco van de Voort het geskryf:
>>
>> About 6 dedicated paid people (and a whole bunch more volunteers) to manage
>> all the branches and review and administrate each patch to reitegrate all
>> the various patches into a few production trees.
>
> Maybe the Linux project was not the best example, because as you say, it
> has commercial funding. So rather look at the Git project then. It has many
> many branches (though only a select few are made public on a public server
> - for end-user convenience). The Git project also has a "stable" branch, an
> "experimental branch", a "fixes / maintenance" branch etc. All managed by a
> single person (Junio) - not being paid for the job. And that single person
> still has time for his own development too.
>
> All I'm saying is, choose the right tool for the job. Not every tool is
> good in every situation. So maybe SubVersion is partly to blame for the
> workflow issue Juha mentions. Just a though.

It's not the tool. Tools are just that - tools to do a job.
Redhat still uses CVS, and they're doing just fine with that.

It's the amount of people needed to actually do the job which is the problem.
No tool will alleviate that.

Whether Vincent has to type 1 or 2 commands to do a merge is not the issue. 
That's just a couple of seconds.

It's the code review after this/these command(s) that is really time consuming.

Mihcael.