On Feb 4, 2009, at 3:38 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:

I agree on the cost of merging.
When a project is branched,  after a while one can spend as much as  
30% of cycles merging
in changes.
But when a system is used in production to store data we cannot afford  
to have users loose their data.
The team at Yahoo had to scramble to recover the lost data, put in  
several emergency patches to deal with
the append code.

I am all for extending hudson testing for branches, but hudson  
testing, while helpful, will not be sufficient  for big
projects because hudson does not have a comprehensive set of tests.  
Each new release is tested significantly beyond the hudson tests.

For me the lesson is that large complex projects should be branched.
(This is how commercial software products are engineered).
There will increased cost to the project team, but over all, the  
community  will have more solid releases and the total cost to the  
community  in delivering the techology will be smaller.

sanjay

NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB