On 23.06.2009, at 15:43, Josh French wrote:
My take on this is that it's best to keep separate branches.
Following a
consistent naming scheme for the branches would be a necessity for
any
sort of automated management, and would be a good idea in general.
...
My thoughts exactly. Tags are fine for small things, but either
branches or version-checking methods are the way to go for more
advanced support.
This is the pattern we've been moving toward internally -- do three
votes count as consensus? :)
I can (maybe) find some time soon to start going through the core
extensions and making sure everything's got at least a 0.7 or 0.8
branch, if not both. For some of our own not-yet-released
extensions, I've actually done away with the master branch and set
the default HEAD ref to 0.8, just so there's no confusion as to what
the current line of development is. Yea? Nay?
Yeah.
And I would suggest to tweak ray a bit.
ray could have a look at what is set in environment.rb and switch
branches according to the radiant gem version.
that would be good for the not so tech savvy people out there :-)
just my 2 cent
cu edi
--
DI Edmund Haselwanter, [email protected], http://edmund.haselwanter.com/
_______________________________________________
Radiant mailing list
Post: [email protected]
Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/
Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
