> so I see not much point in trying to avoid that oh-so-hot crew-stable
> *if* you don't want to wait for that next "official" Mercurial
> release.
>
> Having policies is good, but slavishly following them when they
> are not appropriate is silly.
>
> But it seems I'm wasting my time here anyway.
TK has already made it clear that TortoiseHg will be built upon
released Mercurial, not on something that even the main Mercurial team
hasn't gone through the normal release processes on. As you noted
earlier in the thread, it was already mentioned that Mercurial wanted
to do a 1.0.2 that fixed this so that normal Mercurial release flows
would be able to pick this up. For some reason the will/interest/
whatever to get that done has evaporated. That is where you should
focus your disdain, so that even the poor Windows users who use
Mercurial without the enlightment of TortoiseHg will get the fixes
too. Hence, I fail to see the reason why TortoiseHg should be out in
front of the main Mercurial releases. TortoiseHg's energy and focus is
on the GUI part, not on being a fork, however temporary, of Mercurial.
--Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
