On Wed, 2014-01-08 at 05:09 -0500, Adam Jensen wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 09:26:50 +0100 (CET) > [email protected] wrote: > > I think we don't really have the resources to maintain 2 or 3 > > branches.
I suspect we need two : release and current. More than that ... I would agree... > Hmm, can either of these methodologies tolerate non-trivial development? > For example, what if a developer(s) wished to extend GHDL such that > complex data structures could be traced? The usual Mercurial approach to "big picture" changes is to clone the entire repo (see www.hginit.com, last chapter) essentially forking the project for the separate development. It's safer (there is no danger op polluting the main repo) and the changes can later be merged back into the trunk (or a separate new repo if preferred) I'm not yet clear how that plays with Sourceforge but the "fork" button appears to work along these lines (making you a repo under your account) where you can play, and it does allow merge requests back to the original (which an admin here would have to perform!) I'm trying this out with another SF project but haven't had time to learn it properly yet. > > I also have my private test suite, and I will test GHDL on it. > private? It may contain testcases which Tristan cannot make public domain for whatever reason... - Brian _______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
