Timeline for Code quality on backports branch with limitted lifespan
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 22, 2018 at 12:25 | history | edited | Doc Brown | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 26 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2018 at 9:12 | history | edited | Doc Brown | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2018 at 8:36 | history | edited | Doc Brown | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 164 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2018 at 8:34 | comment | added | Frames Catherine White | +1, as it answered the general question and gives good insights. | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 8:34 | comment | added | Frames Catherine White | Yes, I think so. In my particular cases, that is what we (various people in various packages) were doing for the 0.3->0.4 change, and the 0.4-0.5, and the 0.5-0.6 change. And for 0.6->0.7-dev. The general trend in the community for the 0.6->0.7 (/1.0 which is 0.7 with deprecations removed), has been not to do that, but to branch and hopefully not need to backport too much stuff. I guess in part because the 0.7 release is transitional (released same day as 1.0, for purposes of making the transition), and that means 0.6 code won't normally work in 1.0 easily (but would work in the 0.7) | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 8:31 | history | edited | Doc Brown | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 137 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2018 at 8:25 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @LyndonWhite: clearer now? Besides that, did you read the main part of my answer and what I am recommending here? If the time frame is shorter: better for you, you can earlier start using 1.0 features. If the time frame is longer, it gets more important to have your 0.6 package in a maintainable state. | |
| Aug 22, 2018 at 8:23 | history | edited | Doc Brown | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2018 at 8:14 | history | edited | Doc Brown | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2018 at 8:09 | history | answered | Doc Brown | CC BY-SA 4.0 |