On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 09:02:07AM -0700, Danek Duvall wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 09:21:32PM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > > Although I have nothing specific in mind, I would prefer to see this > > case (and its cousin case for Subversion) to request Patch binding, so > > that a refreshed delivery of SFW into an Update would be a > > possibility. > > Okay. I was mostly waiting for you to make that decision; I've changed it > now.
So I was just thinking about this. Some of hg's subcommands are still Volatile at the moment, basically waiting for some clean-up before version 1.0. We could request Patch binding now, but not release a patch for S10 until these interfaces are Committed, or just ask for Minor binding now, and ask for Patch binding on a follow-on case (for 1.0) that would raise the stability levels. While Volatile would allow us to change these interfaces incompatibly in a patch, it's still somewhat frowned upon to do so. I think I would lean toward the latter -- it's more important to get something into Nevada soon, and it's possible to change things there more easily. We can probably wait a little longer before putting back into S10, and then release something that's a bit more stable, and then just not worry about changing it incompatibly. I think most people who are likely to want to use mercurial for development will want to use it for and with Nevada, so I think the limited exposure is probably okay. Besides, is anyone going to patch S10 to have Python 2.4? That seems like a nastyish piece of work. Danek _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list [email protected]
