Steve Borho wrote, On 11/29/2009 08:09 PM: >> Maybe we should start thinking about somewhat separating shell >> extension development and releases from the rest. > > Interesting. There is a pretty clear separation between the two halves > of the project. hgtk from 0.8 could work with the shell extension of > 0.9 and vice-versa. (If someone did want the cmenu fixes they could > get the new ThgShell.dll from a nighly unstable build and copy it over > their 0.9 install). > > This kind of goes hand-in-hand with the installer issues. If we moved > to something more like WIX, I think we could manage the two parts > independently.
Would the nautilus plugin perhaps be the third half? (AFAIK it has very little in common with the windows shell extension.) For me the real and primary value in "tortoisehg" is in the "hgtk" part. The windows shell integration "just" makes that power available to windows users. On Fedora I have organized it so that hgtk is provided by the "tortoisehg" package, and the optional shell integration is provided by the "tortoisehg-nautilus" package. FWIW, I would rather call the "hgtk" package "hgtk"; that would be more descriptive as it really has very little (nothing but history?) to do with the "tortoise" origin. /Mads ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-develop mailing list Tortoisehg-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-develop
