On 20 March 2011 20:33, Matthew Fulmer <tapp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:26:20AM -0700, Eliot Miranda wrote: >> Except that its my branch and I've been using oscog from the start. Igor >> had no need to use the same name line as me. I don't want to change now. >> oscog refers to my branch of VMMaker for "open source Cog". > > It's not really open source if nobody else can contribute to > that branch. Squeaksource apparently allows versions to be > overwritten. I didn't know that either. Maybe that's part of the > reason the naming convention has been adopted: > Package-author.version > > The best supported convention for maintaining a branch is to use > a different repository. MC is distributed, so packages can be > merged between repositories no problem. > > So http://squeaksource.com/VMMaker/VMMaker-IgorStasenko.53.mcz > would be a trunk commit, and > http://squeaksource.com/OSCog/VMMaker-IgorStasenko.54.mcz would > be a cog commit. > > Changing the package name is not really supported; Most MC > implementations can't merge between packages (MC1.5 could, but I > havn't ported that to any MC that's actually in use) > > I like seperate repositories better anyway; then you can know if > there is a newer version of your branch available just by seeing > if VMMaker package is bold in the repo browser; if they are in > the same repository, you have to pay attention to the commits >
I agree that having different repos could simplify things. Except things which will otherwise complicate them: - publishing new VMMaker version sends nice email to mailing list - configuration(s) to automatically load VMMaker with all dependencies relying on having VMMaker package at certain known location, not at multiple ones. So, lets keep pushing to SqS/VMMaker but use different naming scheme. > -- > Matthew Fulmer (a.k.a. Tapple) > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.