On 8/25/06, Horms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:51:09 -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
> Horms wrote:
>> What will be the procedure for updating STABLE_1_2 and other older but
>> somewhta maintained brances?
>
> If I understand the scheme correctly, each of them has their own
> Mercurial repository.
>
> Andrew: Right? Or totally hosed up?
Yes, I believe that they do.
What I was wondering about is, will each of the old cvs branches
have a working, testing and stable scheeme like the main (HEAD) tree?
Or will there be a simpler/different mechanism to push changes as
those trees presumably receive a lot fewer commits.
Seems my original reply only went to the other list... reposting
I didn't really discuss this with Alan but I'd be inclined to have a
single repository and an official maintainer who merges all patches in
a pull-like fashion.
The volume should be low and the quality of the patches is more important.
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
