Ludovic, hi, the best answer to these questions may be hard to determine. In any case, the "default" choice I made was to start with the latest tla 1.3 and for the present time I just want to move the probably least controversial changes, these of the user interface, into a new release, with the same foundation as what Tom had left off. Then as the most complaints against tla, these of usability, have been addressed, I may consider moving more of the baz improvements into tla. The criteria is of course the less changes to the current foundation, the better. I do not like to see the types of changes between baz 1.4 and 1.5, for example.
Of course, everything is up to discussion on the mailing list among people interested. --- Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Matthieu Moy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Bazaar has clever algorithms to chose which full tree > > revision to start with (a cachedrev, the initial import, or in your > > revision library), but that's relatively deep changes, I don't think > > this will ever be merged into tla. > > You pointed out several times nice features that were implemented in baz > but required deep changes. In his maintainership announcement, Andi > said he would rather be "conservative" with respect to what would got > merged into tla. > > I think it would be nice to define more precisely this level of > conservatism, and in particular, to define a rationale as to what can go > in and what cannot. This also raises the question of which branch is > technically the best choice to start with: tla 1.3? tla 1.4? baz 1.x? _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
