On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Peter Arrenbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is mainly to let you all know I'm working on this. Many of the > dialogs already run again. Piece de resistance will likely be the new > merge/resolve stuff.
Interestingly, I've looked at the similar thing last night. Can you share a bit more, so to make sure we are repeating the effort? BTW, I am puzzled by "Many of the dialogs already run _again_". Do you mean the dialogs (tortoisehg?) were broken somehow? > Question: Do you think it's better to maintain this as a clone/branch, > or as a patch queue? The way I did last night was simply merge Mercurial tree with TortoiseHg's, the push patch queue after the merge. So far the only conflicts are in .hgignore and .hgtags, though they don't, and not like to, cause any problem with the patch queue. It should certainly make it more straightforward if we can maintain it as clone/branch (BTW, I have little/no knowledge on branches), especially for those interested in building the installer. However, I started off with Steve's patch queue, and it seemed to work so far. The only problem I have with it is the hassle in pulling tortoisehg's new changes into it. This actually is the primary reason for what I did last night. We can discuss more on this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-develop
