I think your reply was missing some context. This sentence:
I haven't thought about what happens after the switch, or whether that should imply less frequent updates or not.
was part of my note, to which Rich was replying when he said:
Where it's being relied upon, we need to be backporting fixes to what we deliver, not making major bumps to unreleased upstream code.
...in other words, I think (but I might have misunderstood) that my forward-looking "after the switch" comment corresponded to Rich's more clear "where it's being relied upon."
Your concern is still valid, but I don't think we're there (needing a solution) quite yet.
--Mark
Then it's highly likely that someone else will need to do the work. I can roll up a new rev of a stable (or pseudo-stable) tree pretty quickly, but pulling in cherry-picked revisions and dealing with all the potential merge issues is not something I'm signing up for. If you're implying that you'd be happy to do the work, be my guest. :) If you're implying that you'd prefer I update to hg-stable instead of mercurial, I can do that pretty simply. It's *supposed* to be bug-fix only, which implies that internal interfaces are unlikely to change, but I bet that even that'll happen from time to time. Note that cadmium is depending on interfaces that have no real stability guarantee, so until Mercurial has a well-defined, stable API, we could be running into issues like this on a regular basis. Danek
_______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
