Danny Angus wrote:
I'd say that intent is quite clear on both sides. Let's resolve things one by one as they come. I personally don't think that we should copy James stuff in avalon-sandbox, and I'm sure that Stephen could be given time-limited karma for changes he has to make.
Absolutely, we did the same for Paul H when he helped us with Phoenix. I would say that we need to hear on _this_ list, not everyone is actively following discussions on avalon-dev.
+1
Yes, both are reasonable choices.Stephen has modified code that can be patched on James. It seems he really needs a hand in resolving problems, and want you all to try the changes and see if you can help.
This can be reasonably done by tagging current James and patching HEAD, or making a branch and tagging that.
the former is my prefrence, If the head was changing much, or fast, I'd agree with branching, but as its not I don't think a branch is necessary. Having Stephen break the head will also encourage us to help him fix it(!).
Branching would be more correct and "safe".
Patching head is more pragmatic and increases involvement.
Any of the two are fine. Noel, can you please sum up the thread and get a resolution so that Steven can start?
Thanks :-)
PS: I'm still using James in my company and I *love* it. Is it that it has matchers and stuff like cocoon that makes it so sexy to my eyes? ;-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
