On Thursday 09 November 2006 00:00, Andy Ross wrote:
> Douglas Campos wrote:
> > but content developers can't just stick with plib branch? afaik
> > we'll only making the "porting work" at trunk, right?
>
> No, they can't; not if (by Mathias's suggestion) new features are
> added only to the head and not to the plib branch. See his post a few
> messages up.
Well, that does not mean that anybody different than me can do such merges.
I just feel that just improving the code is way better than killing time by
merges just because some people can't wait for a little feature.
> That issue is, in fact, exactly what got me into this thread. I'm
> fine with maintaining two branches in parallel while one stabilizes.
> But cutting off the working branch when the new one is still
> stabilizing is just wrong.
If somebody is willing to maintain that merges I am fine with that. I will do
that myself iff there are only bug fixes in that branch.
Well may be features that do not touch scenegraph code in any way.
What I want to avoid is killing time with merges that is better spend for
porting what we have that could better have been implemented a month later
into HEAD.
Anybody willing to be the merge maintainer?
Greetings
Mathias
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
