On 05.08.2008 16:08, Douglas Philips wrote: >> so I see not much point in trying to avoid that oh-so-hot crew-stable >> *if* you don't want to wait for that next "official" Mercurial >> release. >> >> Having policies is good, but slavishly following them when they >> are not appropriate is silly. >> >> But it seems I'm wasting my time here anyway. > > TK has already made it clear that TortoiseHg will be built upon > released Mercurial, not on something that even the main Mercurial team > hasn't gone through the normal release processes on. As you noted > earlier in the thread, it was already mentioned that Mercurial wanted > to do a 1.0.2 that fixed this so that normal Mercurial release flows > would be able to pick this up. For some reason the will/interest/ > whatever to get that done has evaporated. That is where you should > focus your disdain, so that even the poor Windows users who use > Mercurial without the enlightment of TortoiseHg will get the fixes > too. Hence, I fail to see the reason why TortoiseHg should be out in > front of the main Mercurial releases. TortoiseHg's energy and focus is > on the GUI part, not on being a fork, however temporary, of Mercurial.
Whew. Now it's even a fork :-). Labeling the crew-stable repo as a fork is really funny indeed. But you haven't presented any halfway convincing argument what's so bad about crew-stable tip, so that it can't be picked up by THG when THG is doing a new binary package of Mercurial to include Mercurial. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
