Mark Triggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I haven't committed anything yet because I know we're not really > looking to add new features at the moment.
1) You can commit safely if you tell me not to merge in the current mainline 2) You could create a branch for a specific feature, and then discuss here the version in which it should be merged 3) If you only add functions, I think we can safely merge your proposal in the future 0.9. It's not a big problem to introduce buggy feature. It is a big problem to break existing features. Anyway, I'll create a developpment branch in a few weeks so that new features can be safely added without compromizing the stability of the 1.0 (But even the branch opened, the top priority should IMHO be testing the future 1.0). > Any suggestions for a key binding for this? In `tla help' it comes > under "branching and merging" so I wondered about 'M t', but that isn't > very mnemonic. I would use 'M T' because capital T is the binding used elsewhere for tagging. > Actually, the reason I'm thinking about this is because I'm > contemplating writing some sort of quick tutorial introduction to Xtla. > Nothing fancy; just some screenshots and descriptions of some common > tasks like: > > * adding a bookmark > * creating a tag from a bookmark and making them partners > * getting a working tree for your branch > [hack hack] > * reviewing your changes > * checking for missing patches > * committing your changes > * etc. I think this fits rather well in the current xtla.texinfo file. We already have something rather similar with the section "Xtla tour", and the recently added node "Use cases". Perhaps your tutorial could be one or two subsections of "Use cases"? (and could be used outside the manual as well, off course). Some texinfo conditional to include screenshots in the html version could do the difference. > Currently there doesn't seem to be a way of creating a tag from a > bookmark, but it seems like something you'd often want to do (bookmark > an interesting project, create your own branch, add the original as a > partner, look for missing patches, etc.). Yep, that was clearly a good idea. -- Matthieu
