On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
No, I think extension updates can be backported more
regularly, as
long as the changes are tested, and the potential impact is limited.
What about core updates that are tested and have limited potential
impact? Like, say, most of the updates we'd get to core in any given
week? There isn't much of a hard distinction between core and
extensions.
Core changes are typically complex and interdependent,
and can cause
problems for extensions. Large projects are committed to core in a
low-quality state, and it takes time to stabilise them, despite the
efforts of development branch reviewers. That's why major core updates
require more testing.
This would argue equally well for not committing large projects to
trunk all at once, or only committing them hidden behind
off-by-default preferences. It doesn't mean you can't regularly
deploy the simple changes that are unlikely to cause significant
problems, and where the problems can be easily fixed when they're
found.