-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Theo Van Dinter writes:
>> OK, let's stick with doing 2.6x from sf.net CVS instead. It's a
>> little more tiresome, but ASF-izing 2.6x in the meantime would be
>> harder all-in-all and require intrusive changes.
>
>well, a bugfix will now require a checkin to head, then a checkin to ASF
>2.6x (we don't want the branch out of sync with CVS), then a checkin to
>CVS 2.6x.
>
>not to mention taking the patches already applied to svn 2.6x and applying
>them to cvs.
ick.
Mind you I did tag the 2.6x sf.net CVS so a diff should work. Perhaps the
way to do it is:
- diff svn 2.6x branch against its initial import date, make a patch
- apply patch to sf.net 2.6x
- mark svn 2.6x as "DO NOT CHANGE, USE SF.NET INSTEAD"
- tag sf.net 2.6x as "up to date with svn"
- then, periodically (every month or so?):
- diff sf.net 2.6x against most recent "up to date with svn" tag
- patch svn with that diff
- update tag on current sf.net 2.6x
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQE/+cGoQTcbUG5Y7woRAitPAKDi3vApvVzb/Mq8ejYq0KrdVQrM7ACfX4X9
gP45XNjoumvAgwSjYCyrOuI=
=lRyL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
