Doug Chamberlin schreef:
What if, in response to a last-minute show stopper bug, the scheduled
release was immediately superseded by another one with a higher release
number? What would be the harm?
It would make a lot of confusion.
Do you really think that anyone likely to use these
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:26:58PM -0400, Doug Chamberlin wrote:
What if, in response to a last-minute show stopper bug, the scheduled
release was immediately superseded by another one with a higher release
number? What would be the harm?
FPC did that once 1.0.8 in 2003 or thereabouts. Afaik
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Distinguish between distribution lines. My suggestion is for the
repository itself. A tarball can contain the patched version, and can
have other naming conventions. RPM packages frequently come with
patches.
Doug Chamberlin schrieb:
What if, in response to a last-minute show stopper bug, the scheduled
release was immediately superseded by another one with a higher release
number? What would be the harm?
Do you really think that anyone likely to use these programs (FPC and
Lazarus) would not
Op donderdag 16-04-2009 om 08:49 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Graeme
Geldenhuys:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Distinguish between distribution lines. My suggestion is for the
repository itself. A tarball can contain the patched
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Alexander Klenin kle...@gmail.com wrote:
As a general issue, IMO the Discussion section of git-tag manpage
summarizes the case for correct tag usage very nicely ;-)
And more importantly - in Git, a 'tag' is very different to a 'branch'. ;-)
Regards,
-
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Vincent Snijders
vincent.snijd...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, so what is written about how to use tags with doesn't apply to
svn, because with SVN a tag is not very different at all to a branch.
;-)
:-) I've only been using Git for 2-3 months (1.5 months actively).
Op dinsdag 14-04-2009 om 12:35 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Hans-Peter
Diettrich:
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
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
2009/4/15 Graeme Geldenhuys graemeg.li...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Joost van der Sluis jo...@cnoc.nl wrote:
ps: Releasing a fpc release costs more then 4 months! FOUR MONTHS! And
still we had to cancel the release on the day of the planned release.
How did this thread
Op dinsdag 14-04-2009 om 16:06 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Graeme
Geldenhuys:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Florian Klaempfl
flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
And what if someone realizes that one patch is missing?
Well, is that not what release canditate or stable branches are for?
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Joost van der Sluis jo...@cnoc.nl wrote:
ps: Releasing a fpc release costs more then 4 months! FOUR MONTHS! And
still we had to cancel the release on the day of the planned release.
How did this thread become all about FPC releases??? This is the
Lazarus
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Vincent Snijders
vincent.snijd...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, so what is written about how to use tags with doesn't apply to
svn, because with SVN a tag is not very different at all to a branch.
;-)
:-) I've only been using Git for 2-3
Op woensdag 15-04-2009 om 11:25 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Graeme
Geldenhuys:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Joost van der Sluis jo...@cnoc.nl wrote:
ps: Releasing a fpc release costs more then 4 months! FOUR MONTHS! And
still we had to cancel the release on the day of the planned
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 03:25:10PM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Vincent Snijders
vsnijd...@vodafonevast.nl wrote:
I am abusing the tool, because it is a tool after all, not a law. Sorry to
confuse
you with it, but I never realized you would get into
2009/4/15, Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com:
Let's play it straight: there's no _need_ for moving tags.
Yes, it can be convenient, but you'll shooting yourself in the foot no
matter if it's how private you make it.
I think I have to shoot myself in the foot before I give up this
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
It's one of the very first points in the SVN book (iirc differences to CVS),
that branches and tags are the same.
and then you read between the lines design flaw! ;-)
Regards,
- Graeme -
2009/4/15 Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com:
As I said previously (and was completely ignored ;-), with SVN one can
rely on repository revisions.
And if people don't like that, they can use a series of pre tags.
And probably a pre branch.
Brilliant idea. Create a pre-0.9.26 branch (or
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Joost van der Sluis jo...@cnoc.nl wrote:
The whole git-stuff is off-topic. Most people here don't care.
I've setup a Git mirror of Lazarus SubVersion repository. It's got
everything to do with Lazarus development. And yes most people don't
care yet, because the
Vincent Snijders schrieb:
2009/4/15, Graeme Geldenhuys graemeg.li...@gmail.com:
2009/4/15 Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com:
As I said previously (and was completely ignored ;-), with SVN one can
rely on repository revisions.
And if people don't like that, they can use a series
2009/4/15, Graeme Geldenhuys graemeg.li...@gmail.com:
2009/4/15 Flávio Etrusco flavio.etru...@gmail.com:
As I said previously (and was completely ignored ;-), with SVN one can
rely on repository revisions.
And if people don't like that, they can use a series of pre tags.
And
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 00:02, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
Very difficult. If a release is created from a branch, nobody can ensure
that all release builders built the release candidate from exactly the
same revision, if they don't, things might be broken when the final
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Florian Klaempfl
flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
start the release process. 2-4 months later if anything is broken,
merge and patch that branch at will. Test again
Did you ever working on testing a lazarus or fpc release?
Do you mean... have I tested a release
Alexander Klenin schrieb:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 00:02, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org
wrote:
Very difficult. If a release is created from a branch, nobody can ensure
that all release builders built the release candidate from exactly the
same revision, if they don't, things might
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Florian Klaempfl
flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
start the release process. 2-4 months later if anything is broken,
merge and patch that branch at will. Test again
Did you ever working on testing a lazarus or fpc release?
Do you
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 00:02, Florian Klaempfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
Very difficult. If a release is created from a branch, nobody can ensure
that all release builders built the release candidate from exactly the
same revision, if they don't, things might be broken when the final
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
I forgot to pull in the 'tags' when I mirrored the SubVersion
repository to Git. I would like to tag them now, but need to know what
revisions was used for each tag.
Based on the following URL, is the revision column next to every tag
the revision numbers I
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Marc Weustink
marc.weust...@cuperus.nl 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
2009/4/14 Graeme Geldenhuys graemeg.li...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Marc Weustink
marc.weust...@cuperus.nl 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
2009/4/14 Graeme Geldenhuys graemeg.li...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Marc Weustink
marc.weust...@cuperus.nl 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
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Vincent Snijders
vincent.snijd...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you suggest instead? Remove the tag and tag again? Or is
deleting a directory under tags not allowed in GIT either?
Tags should be created after a release has been announced. Before
that, a Branch
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
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
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Vincent Snijders
vincent.snijd...@gmail.com
Another school says that you need to build releases from a tagged version.
Those learners should go back to school! :-)
No. It's stupid to tag after a release is built or even worse,
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef:
quote
Another common version control concept is a tag. A tag is just a
“snapshot” of a project in time.
[...snip]
But wait a moment: isn't this tag creation procedure the same
procedure we used to create a branch? Yes, in fact, it is. In
Subversion,
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
The difference between tags and branches does only exist in the naming
convention, nothing more.
Now I'm starting to appreciate Linus's talk about Git at Google Talk.
SubVersion really has a brain-dead design. ;-)
SubVersion had to be compatible with the old
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Vincent Snijders
vsnijd...@vodafonevast.nl wrote:
I am abusing the tool, because it is a tool after all, not a law. Sorry to
confuse
you with it, but I never realized you would get into trouble with git. svn
export
and svn co of that tag works exactly the
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
Even in CVS - the mother of all revision systems - a tag could be moved,
so there also it could be that you had to do a cvs up on a tag.
Software evolves
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
graemeg.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
Even in CVS - the mother of all revision systems - a tag could be moved,
so there also it could be that you had to do a cvs up
37 matches
Mail list logo
