Thomas,
I am unsure whether I have posed my question clearly. Please let me
clarify my understanding of the situation:
1) there is no code grant for village registered yet.
2) we are unsure whether we can use the workingdogs package namespace
3) we would like to release torque 3.3 after we have incorporated village
4) we want to remove the dependency on village after 3.3
So it seems that unless 1) happens, we cannot proceed with 3) and 4).
This is a bit unsatisfactory.
However, if we would create a branch now, we could start working on 4)
just now, regardless whether 1) and 2) happen/are answered.
And the suggestion was to do this, i.e. create the branch now.
Thomas
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
Thomas Fischer wrote:
If Thomas V wants to pursue the integration of village into torque further,
the branch approach guarantees that this effort can also be pursued
further.
For the current release (3.3) I'd just add the Village packages to the
runtime source and wrestle them to have the correct license and such. Then
remove the dependencies. That would pratically be it. There is no need to
create a branch for this, I guess. I believe that the Torque runtime with the
added Village classes would be a good point to branch i.e. the upcoming 3.3
release.
Bye, Thomas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
