On 6/04/2011, at 10:57 PM, case wrote:
> I'm also a little concerned about how people plan to eventually merge the
> remove-warnings branch back into the master. For code that hasn't changed
> in 20 years, and/or which we didn't write in the first place (Xraw, Wc, etc.)
> the merge should be easy. But for active code that is constantly being
> changed, I worry about merges. The general rule would be to merge often,
> so that glitches are quickly caught, and maybe soon would be a good time to
> start that.
>
> [I'm pleased that most of the branches I follow, such as rism-dev, pbsa-dev,
> etc. are regularly merged with the master. If you are keeping a branch that
> doesn't do that, consider whether or not you are being wise.]
Every few days, I try to merge master into remove-warnings. I haven't dared to
go the other way yet, for fear of breaking things, at least with the impending
release of AT 1.5. Now that AT 1.5 is effectively off on its own, I suppose we
could be more free with merges back the other direction.
Part of the difficulty was that I got part-way through an ugly and thorny set
of changes in sander, and I think that merging the remove-warnings branch back
into the master at the moment is fraught. Nevertheless, I'm open to giving it
a go, if you think that's best.
Ben
--
For greater security, I support S/MIME encryption.
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Wed Apr 06 2011 - 20:30:03 PDT
