Re: refactorings in minor versions

> Can I ask, for purposes of documentation, what reasoning we could use to make future conversations smoother? The git workflow and guidelines page currently reads:
> 
> > The current release branch (like 3.9), to which only bug fixes can be merged. (Features will occasionally be merged into release branches if they are considered critical for that release.)
> 
> Maybe we should have a sentence like: "A bug fix may contain a new feature if the feature is minor, and if implementing the fix without this feature would require additional work.”

yes, that sounds good! Maybe:

"A bug fix may bring with it minor features if it would require additional work to implement otherwise."

> 
> Btw, this also brought to light that the explanations of "patch" and "feature" may not be clear enough. I think the documentation should include a few sentences on that.
> 

that would be good, in computer music, a patch is something else normally (https://www.retrolinear.com/media/17723/_DSC0091.jpg)

OT: does anyone have an image for those removable patch boards on old modular synths?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=eVXy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----