[Lazarus] Release schedule and policy

[Marco van de Voort]

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:19:27AM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Op 2010-10-25 10:52, Marco van de Voort het geskryf:
> > 
> > The problem is keeping track of them. See my other reply in this thread.
> 
> Again, use the right tools for the job. Git (I really didn't what to say
> this again) makes this easy.

You are talking about stuff that merely creates an overview of patch(sets). At best.

I'm talking about the actually meaning of a patch, what problems it can
cause, its regression testing and the like.
 
> 
> > What I haven't seen:
> > - the problem
> 
> Good lord, read you damn emails. Read my messages in the past with a
> similar topic. Read Juha's original post. Listen to what the many Lazarus
> users post quite often on this mailing list.

Yes. And as said they are all likewise vague, hide behind comparisons,
incidents etc.

> > - practicality of implementing the solution
> 
> like with everything else, things evolve and change over time. KDE used
> CVS, then SubVersion, then Git. Linux project, a similar thing. tiOPF
> project used emailing patches, CVS, then Team Coherence then SubVersion.
> Thousands of other open source project are changing there ways over time -
> as newer and better tools become available. FPC and Lazarus projects still
> seem oblivious to this fact. God only knows what a struggle it must have
> been to come to the consensus to move from CVS to SubVersion - thank God it
> was before my time.

That is exactly the point. The main proponents of SVN (Florian and Peter),
at the time prepared the migration, provided a lot of info, examples of
usage, suggested workflow etc. The same when Jonas investigated merge
tracking.

They didn't just point to some other project, but applied knowledge to the
actual buildup of the project.