2010/10/18 MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com>om>:
Waiting for more revisions to build up makes
diagnosing and finding problems
more difficult (same size needle, larger haystack).
Are you suggesting we deploy a
revision that's somewhere halfway
between the currently deployed revision and HEAD? I'm leery of that
because we don't really know what the stability of that revision is.
It'll likely also have issues that got fixed later, but that may be
hard to merge in because of the large difference (hence more potential
for merge conflicts) between the new deployment and HEAD. This is why
I would like to deploy code that's as close to HEAD as possible, and
to *stay* close to HEAD by doing regular deployments.
You know this and I know
this, which is why I'm trying to pivot the conversation toward what I view
as the bigger question: who's going to be doing general code updates in the
future?
I would personally feel comfortable to do a small-sized general update
(say, a week's worth of code as opposed to the gigantic update needed
to catch up with trunk) if there's a few other people around ready to
jump in and help me if something goes wrong. For a large update with
many potential complications, I do think Tim should be involved.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)