Vladimir R. Bossicard wrote:
> Actually I volunteered to do that, bot got no reply. :-/
You don't need my go-go to commit release-related suff :-) Actually, we need a clean tar.gz archive (the zip is in the contributor.xml file) and bug fixes.
Well, actually I think that when it comes to *release* stuff there should be a general consensus. Sure, plain commits don't need any specific approval, but it'd definitely not so for a release where we all have to agree and coordinate.
> Actually it's not a fork at all. It's a tag, nothing more. We have > some interesting code that would be nice to commit (I'm talking about > the metadata stuff) but I don't like to commit it to what might be 1.1 > codebase. A tag is only that, a tag, to keep things clean.
yes but if you tag the tree, you still have only one branch (the HEAD). The only way to commit code for only one version is to fork the tree, not to tag it. Please reread the cvs manual . Otherwise I haven't understood cvs at all. :-)
No, you understood it correctly, it's me screwing up with my bad english and scraping out the rust from almost one year of inactivity, please bear with me. :-) What I meant was to "technically" (in the CVS lingo) doing a "rtag -b", which is definitely a branch from the CVS viewpoint, but it's not a fork. I was afraid that you were mentioning a "fork" not as a CVS technicality but as its "social" meaning, where forking means follow different paths of developments, generally due to frictions and the like. So, in the end and when it will happen, it will be a CVS fork (or branch) but not a social fork. All set? :-)
> 2. a release manager (the guy actually doing the release). Again, I > volunteer for that but if some of you guys is willing to do it, he's > most welcome and saves me a lot of work;
As I said, I won't be able to do this. But I'll try to help.
Cool! :-)
Ciao,
-- Gianugo Rabellino
