On Mon, 7 Sep 2009, Alexander Burger wrote:
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 04:28:04PM -0300, TC wrote:
I don't see it in the repo, maybe you forgot to _push_?

Ah, sorry, then we have a misunderstanding. As far as I remember, we
agreed that I will not push ongoing development code (i.e. the 64-bit
stuff), and we wait until 3.0 is finished.

Sorry, I misunderstood the line:
"function in the 64-bit version (it was 'commit', btw)! Now the 64-bit"

I thought the "it was 'commit', btw" meant you put the changes in the repo.
That's all. :)

I suggest that we wait till the beginning of October, then set up a
fresh initial repository (I considered the current one as experimental)

I agree.

which will contain the whole system including the 32-bit stuff (but not
the 64-bit stuff, as this is still too much in a flow).

I'll continue with providing the base system releases, if possible in
three-month-cycles as before, and everybody is free to add and maintain
extensions in the hg repo.

Gooood :)

Even better I would find if I would not have to care about the hg repo
at all, and some of our specialists (tc.rucho, hsarvell, ..) could take
the responsibility of adding/updating base system changes to the repo.

It's fine by me. No problem.

This means that only the responsibility of the base system stays with
me, and I would have to implement custom change requests manually as
before, but this would save me a lot of time in total. The
responsibility for custom extensions and modifications in the repo stays
with the individual who initiated them.

Is this ok?

It's reasonable and fair. I agree. Although it would be nice if core changes 
were kept in the repository, everyone should be free to work the way they 

I'm eager to see what pL will turn into :D (of course, I'll help (how I can and 
in my way though :P ))

UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to