On Mar 27, 2007, at 5:20 PM, Max Ischenko wrote: > > > On 3/27/07, Alberto Valverde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Those at the 1.0.2 milestone. However, they're not strictly needed > > to get 1.1 out (although they'll need to be merged when done) so if > > you just want to help for 1.1 don't bother about them. > > Of course, if you *do* want to help, by all means, go ahead! :) > > Any pending patch you feel confident enough to apply or comment or > discard do so (but please remember merging it into trunk and cp3) > > To re-iterate: if I do any commits on 1.0 branch I should copy > changes to trunk & cp branches.
Correct. > > What if I commit to cp3? How it's going to be merged with trunk? Probably it will be as easy as a "svn merge" as no one is committing to the trunk ATM. However, we have to be careful with merges from 1.0 to trunk that are not merged into cp3 (branch) because we will smash them and probably forget about them. That's why I'm insisting so much in keeping cp3 in sync with trunk. This makes me think that it might be desirable to merge as soon as possible.... maybe before all tests are ported? maybe even *now*? Just to get a feeling of how risky this would be... is anyone running an app (prduction or not) from trunk? It makes be a bit uneasy having such an unstable trunk, but having to keep 3 branches in sync for any longer makes me even more uncomfortable... opinions? Alberto --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
