Stu Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/03/2005 11:39:13 PM: > I noticed we crossed paths over the ether! > > Shane and I will implement everything we've brought up. We're setup > so we'll be able to submit patches against the RDC dev trunk. Still > need to check out the new bugzilla presence, but that shouldn't be a > problem. We're going to bounce quite a few design ideas around on > the list, both as a sanity check and also in an attempt to make > enhancements we need useful for the library themselves. Please > challenge the need for things we bring up, as well as the > implementation. We're doing the same on our end. <snip/>
Definitely, please don't mind me challenging any need(s) either ;-) In some cases, its hard to get the really corner cases into a public distribution, just in terms of code manageability. But, you own your copies after all. > > Btw, I really wish there were a bitkeeper-like way of comparing > between svn repositories...any suggestions on this would be much > appreciated. Right now I've made a local svn copy of the current RDC > trunk. We're making changes against our local copy, and can generate > patches against that. But obviously that breaks down over time as > RDCs evolve - assuming not all of our patches make it in that is ;-) <snap/> Yes, this will be interesting, lets just assume the more difficult case where you end up with a local copy. First, as long as separate bugzilla entries are made for every bug/enhancement, we can track each outcome separately. Then, I think you can create a local branch in SVN, using a WC to WC copy (not sure). Finally, there are probably some good three-way diff/merge tools out there. -Rahul
