On Sunday 05 April 2009, Adam GROSZER wrote:
> I think 1.9 is a definite candidate for bugfixes because it is
> included right now in KGS 3.4, that means it should be the stable on.
I agree.
> 2.0 depends already on features of some packages of the trunk.
> (I asked also myself whether that's a g
On Sunday 05 April 2009, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> I thought to fix that in svn, but there's no 1.9.x branch, and 2.0
> (trunk) is a very different beast.
I usually do not create a branch for a major version until it is needed. I
then use the latest tag of that version and copy it to the branch.
>
Hello Martin,
I think 1.9 is a definite candidate for bugfixes because it is
included right now in KGS 3.4, that means it should be the stable on.
2.0 depends already on features of some packages of the trunk.
(I asked also myself whether that's a good thing, because 1.9 is so
ancient and 2.0 doe