On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:09 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 05:20, Mathias Bauer <[email protected]> wrote: >> ... >>> (guess the fact that yours is smaller is caused by me having used DEV300 >>> and you OOO340, so some CWSes that are empty for you have content for me) >> >> Indeed I got more empty cws because I checked against OOO340. As this is >> the version we want to use, I updated cws-list.txt accordingly. > > I wanted to highlight this particular fact. > > Is there consensus that we will build the single Hg repository based > on OOO340? (with separate bookmarks for all CWSs, pulled against that > tag)
+1 for OOO340. It contains all changesets that DEV300 currently contains (apart from the tip-most two, whose contents is covered via different changesets on OOO340, too), and more. > Previously, I had thought the consensus was DEV300_m106. I believe the > choice here implies what "trunk" will end up as: DEV300 or OOO340. I > thought that I'd heard there was work completed on DEV300 that is > *not* part of OOO340. If that is true, then what should we do that > work? I at least am not aware of any such work (even re/DEV300_next, the repo which release engineering uses as a staging ground to integrate CWSs into the DEV300 repo, currently contains no new content). There are not-yet-integrated CWSs that were intended for integration into DEV300 instead of OOO340 (so that their content does not de-stabilize OOo 3.4 shortly before anticipated release), but technically they can be integrated into the OOO340 repo just as well. Just to clarify: That the repo is called OOO340 need not mean that it can be only used to produce an OOo 3.4. Going forward, (a copy of) it can be used for future releases just as well. It just happens that OOO340 is currently the most convenient repo to clone from as it contains ~everything that is and ever was OOo, source-code-wise. -Stephan
