On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:35:40PM +0200, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: > >> Yes, but beware the some of them got merges from trunk afterwards. > >> > >> For instance, lazarus_0_9_26_2 is based on 18716, and r18269 got merged > >> resulting in r18898. So you cannot simpy use r18898 for the tag. > > > > I noticed that... Doesn't that defeat the point of tags??? Branches > > are used for merging things. Tags should be set in stone - a snapshot > > at a specific point in time. > > I'll second that. > > Later fixes should be supplied as patches (AKA "service packs"), IMO.
And deliver and maintain a patch infrastructure for end users? Brrr. I agree with Vincent that an ideal case would be to hide/unhide tags, so that they are only publically visible after finalization. But it remains only a tool, and such minor details shouldn't be exaggerated. Moreover, I've a feeling that both Graeme and you are reasoning from a very centralized model, where one person is responsible for a branch, and often controls the total flow of patches over that branch. (like Linus, Andrew and the rest in Linux) FPC and Lazarus are not organized that way. A tool should match organization, not the other way around. _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus