I'm game. And Karl, I hereby state my approval for you to go ahead and commit these website related fixes and any other broken-link fixes you wish to commit in the coming days. I've only seen one thing in your past N patches that I would have done differently, so let's just cut out the middle man, shall we?
Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote: > sorry...not answered to the list. > >> Hi Michael, >> >> >>> Yeah, the great thing about always pointing at trunk is that it >>> contains all >>> the change records, so if you want to see what happened in other >>> releases, >>> the info is readily available. >>> >>> The bad thing is that it contains all the change records, so if you >>> don't >>> want to see what happened in other releases, you gotta dig some for the >>> release you do care about. >> Yes...that's a point... >>> >>> But here's my case for *not* linking against the tagged CHANGES >>> items: we >>> only push out new release notes for big X.Y.0 releases, yet folks >>> refer to >>> them as an explanation of what they are getting with any installation of >>> Subversion from the X.Y lineage. It would be weird to download >>> Subversion >>> 1.6.9, read the 1.6 release notes, and then get pointed to a quite-stale >>> 1.6.0 CHANGES list. So if we're going to do anything around these >>> parts, we >>> should be pointing to the CHANGES files as they exist in the release >>> *branches* (e.g. branches/1.6.x/CHANGES). >> That's a better solution for this... >> >> I would vote for that ... >> >> +1 from me... >> >> >> Kind regards >> Karl Heinz Marbaise > -- C. Michael Pilato <[email protected]> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
