At this point, our internal branches still contain proprietary libraries and parts of our server code. We have to have an explicit export process to block that. We have a team working on "source code splitup" to finish the separation of our systems into libraries, and when that's finished I believe we'll be able to do it all with hg.
On Mar 22, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Aleric Inglewood wrote: > *confused* I thought that we were going to use hg, so that > commits made internally can be easilly and frequently > pushed to a public repository. Is that "viewer-public"? > > Then why is there is there still a "viewer-external" > using SVN? That kinda defeats the purpose of hg? > > I thought, and think, that snowglobe development > should also be done with hg, so we can have all > the benefits of having local repositories and > experimental branches to developer and test patches. > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Kent Quirk (Q Linden) <q...@lindenlab.com> > wrote: > Hi, all. I've created a draft of our repository strategy for how we will be > handling open development branches at LL, and posted an annotated diagram on > the wiki. > > https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Repository_Strategy > > Questions and constructive commentary are encouraged. Since it's policy we > intend to follow, please edit only for clarity. If it needs substantive > tweaking, please let us do it. > > Thanks, > > Q > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges >
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
