On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Christopher Nilsson <
christop...@otherchirps.net> wrote:
>
> Yep -- Most of the changes that have gone in lately have been bug fixes,
> that folks have had living in personal clone repositories for a fairly long
> while. But a more central "next" branch sounds like a good idea. Somewhere
> to collect all the different changes together from all the other repos out
> there, so we all know what needs testing before merging into main.
>
> Or are the git tags good enough for now, given the traffic of incoming
> changes isn't enormous (yet ;) )? eg. the "official" tag is pointing to the
> "1.23.1" tag, so anything added since then needs checking.
>
> What do people think, any opinions on how it should be done?
>
>
>From a packagers viewpoint I rather support the stable branch idea, this way
the package script can stay always the same, and one should just compile the
latest head. But on the other hand, if the "official" simply points to the
latest stable commit, that would have almost the same effect (just almost,
because archlinux' packager utility includes automatic means to determine
the latest commit from a git repo).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3.
Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great
experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today
http://p.sf.net/sfu/msIE9-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
Fish-users mailing list
Fish-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fish-users
