On Aug 17, 4:56 pm, Matt Wozniski <m...@drexel.edu> wrote: > > 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. >
I don't think I can top what Matt says here, I agree whole-heartedly. When I look at a new project, I personally expect the "latest and greatest" to be on the main trunk, unless there are spurious "experimental" branches. I expect that when I want to look at an old version, I will need to do something special. I expect that most users will either get pre-compiled binaries when they don't want the bleeding-edge stuff, or will be willing to do a little extra work to ensure a stable version. Maybe we could have a floating "stable" label that moves from time to time as new versions get used and tested, to limit the amount of thinking that goes into getting the latest "stable" build? -- 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
