Kelly F. Hickel writes: > > Well, I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this. I certainly never > suggested that it be committed to stable without a patch for feature.
No, but my recollection is that you're working against stable, and then Mark mentioned possibly committing changes, so I wanted to go on record as opposing committing any changes to stable for this, at least at this time. The whole point of the stable branch is that it *is* stable -- the only changes are bug fixes (or, with sufficient justification, pure enhancements that can't break existing functionality). > also can't fully agree that it's purely an enhancement, in that in our > environment it runs so slowly that if we can't improve the performance > soon, we'll be forced to switch to some other tool, which I really don't > want to do. I understand, but these kinds of changes are what the feature branch is for, so that's where they belong. > I've gone to a fair amount of effort to follow the requirements for > changes, but at this point, before I spend more time on this I need to > fully understand *exactly* what is required to get these changes > committed. Particularly what is meant by the phrase "thoroughly tested > on feature". That's open to interpretation/negotiation. :-) I haven't been following your progress closely, but from a distance it looks like you're pretty close to something that could reasonably be committed to the feature branch. -Larry Jones Oh, what the heck. I'll do it. -- Calvin _______________________________________________ Bug-cvs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
