Nicolas Weeger wrote:
I was thinking of:
* create a new either 'quest' archetype, or special force, for
quests (right now i use forces, will probably keep that)
* use that to link items to quests. So an item could actually
be part of multiple quests. It's then just a matter of adding
force to it
Hello.
I was wondering about the opportunity of making branches when we get
close to releases.
It would let people go on committing to HEAD, while ensuring code can be
stabilized for release.
Opinions? Flames? Comments?
Ryo
___
crossfire mailing list
I think it might be good, though it might complicate things a little
bit. I currently don't know anything about dealing with different
branches in cvs, but I'm sure I could learn easily if I need to.
Alex Schultz
Nicolas Weeger wrote:
Hello.
I was wondering about the opportunity of maki
sounds like a good idea.
On 7/30/05, Nicolas Weeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I was wondering about the opportunity of making branches when we get
> close to releases.
>
> It would let people go on committing to HEAD, while ensuring code can be
> stabilized for release.
>
> Opinio
Alex Schultz wrote:
> I think it might be good, though it might complicate things a little
> bit. I currently don't know anything about dealing with different
> branches in cvs, but I'm sure I could learn easily if I need to.
I too think it would be good idea.
And I don't think it would complicat
I'd be more concerned about this if there were lots of commits going on,
or there was a real desire to have a stable branch (eg, significant changes in
main branch that may make it real unstable or incompatible, and thus you want to
retain an older branch for compatibility reasons.
But the
6 matches
Mail list logo