Hi Greg, On 07.07.2011 04:09, 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) > > 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 have no opinion, but the fetch-all-cws.sh script is > written/documented to work from a DEV300 repository. That will need to > be updated. > > > Also, to clarify: OOO340 is the hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340 > repository? And that I can get OOO340 by using the DEV300.hg bundle, > then pulling from that repository? does that mean that you are working on that and - even more important - also on the generation of the svn dump? Just to avoid work duplication! Regards, Mathias
