On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > Björn Winckler wrote: >> I for one would be very happy if the next version (vim74?) used this >> scheme (i.e. where all new work happens on the "default" branch). > > In my opinion the default branch should contain the stable version. > Most users would sync there once in a while to update their Vim.
Most users don't get their vim from source control at all - they get it from binaries or source provided by their distro. > Developers would want to get the bleeding edge version, and we can > assume the can follow the instructions to sync to a different branch. > > I think what would normally happen is to merge the development branch > back into the default branch. But just like the problems you have now, > I suspect that migth not work very well. Keep in mind that in most opensource projects work that way - I don't think I've ever checked out code where the starting branch wasn't the main development branch. If you want an older version, it's easy to check out an old tag. With CVS or SVN, you'd always get the latest HEAD, there's no reason for Hg to be any different. Just my $0.02 ~Matt -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
