Am Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:24:00 +0900 (JST) schrieb Teika Kazura <[email protected]>:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:10:09 +0200, Christopher Roy Bratusek wrote: > > Yesterday I created the "sawfish-2.90" branch. Which will go HEAD > > after a while and will lead to Sawfish 3.0 > > Isn't it too early? Without gtk+3, there's no reason to call it > Sawfish-3. Renaming of modules happens definitely sometime, so I'd say > it's ok in 1.7.1, or at least 1.8.0 suffices. It's not. It introduces incompatible changes (more than just module renaming), which are to be avoided in the stable branch. Besides there won't be a 1.8x -- 1.7x is supported until at least 3.0 Also I choose 2.90 to indicate that it's very early. > If we're to have both 2.90 and 1.7, then we have to decide into which > branch should go new edits. For example, I can soon push Emacs > sawfish.el, a minor bug fix of kde.jl, and new quote-event. It's good > have them sooner (say next Feb), but in order to do so, they have to > go 1.7. Sawfish-3 release is not close. Fixes of course go into both, for the new quote-event it depends on whether it introduces incompatibilities. > I don't think edge is so much difficult (neither 3-day hack of > course), so doing in 1.7, or a topic branch is enough. Since we > don't release 1.7.1 soon, it's ok if it takes longer than we presume > now. > > A "topic branch" is e.g. "a branch for openGL hack only". (When it's > done, "git rebase" there, and "git merge topic-a" in master.) > Topic branches are better than big one 2.90, since it's easier to see > the status (diff, what's ok to ship and what's not, etc), and they can > be merged one by one to the master. topic branches are of course OK. If it will land in 1.7x, if not it's done directly in 2.90. > I'll have a look at gaol-tab issue. > > # I've got to invent new tricks. To see what's happened recently, I > # have shell alias "PG" which attaches a tag "pull" to the HEAD and > # pull, and "PP" as "tig pull.." > > Regards, > Teika (Teika kazura) >
