I think we should leave the current CVS-style branching model and make
better use of Git.
'master' is currently two things: The development branch, and getting
in the way it's an abandonware repository: slapmodify, vc, etc.
Maybe that's harsh, but if it is not abandonware, why are the authors
no
I wrote:
- Some sort of 'devel' branch, branched off 'maint' and current
'master', merging 'maint' after releases.
Like to today's 'master' but without unfinished features other than
code behind #ifdef LDAP_DEVEL. That way it can be merged into
maint
now and then (like before a releas
On Jan 30, 2012, at 22:12 , Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> Please test RE24. Recent fixes primarily for back-mdb. Thanks!
All OK on Mac OS X 10.7.2/Intel x86_64 against patched BDB 4.7.52
jens
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
--On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:11 PM +0100 Hallvard Breien Furuseth
wrote:
I think we should leave the current CVS-style branching model and make
better use of Git.
'master' is currently two things: The development branch, and getting
in the way it's an abandonware repository: slapmodify
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:11 PM +0100 Hallvard Breien Furuseth
> wrote:
>
>> I think we should leave the current CVS-style branching model and
>> make better use of Git. 'master' is currently two things: The
>> development branch, and getting in the way it
--On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:59 PM +0100 Hallvard Breien Furuseth
wrote:
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:11 PM +0100 Hallvard Breien Furuseth
wrote:
I think we should leave the current CVS-style branching model and
make better use of Git. 'master' is c
Hallvard Breien Furuseth wrote:
Aha, I hadn't caught that. I remember slapmodify (or the companion LDIF
api?) is buggy and had the distinct impression that this is well known.
I may have been thinking of contrib:ucn rather than contrib:vc.
a note from hyc @ irc: "ITSs against it [usn] should b
