On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Peer Sommerlund<[email protected]> wrote: > > 2009/7/24 Adrian Buehlmann <[email protected]> >> >> On 24.07.2009 17:58, Steve Borho wrote: >> > Now that 0.8.1 is out the door, it's time to concentrate on 0.9. >> > >> > The first large steps will be happening soon. I am going to apply >> > names to the two existing lines of development. The 0.8 line of >> > development, which is present in both the stable and crew >> > repositories, will be given a branch name of '0.8'. The 0.9 line of >> > development, which is only present on the crew repository, will be >> > given a branch name of '0.9'. >> >> I think setting a branch name for 0.9 *now* is rather bad idea, IMHO. >> This should simply be the default branch now. >> >> Main development ("trunk") should happen in default branch. >> >> This also fits with what you get when you do a fresh clone: Mercurial >> updates to the tip of default branch. >> >> Feature freeze of 0.9 should be the earliest birthday of the 0.9 branch. > > I think one can argue for many different branch procedures. In practice it > does not matter much which is chosen, but I think it is more important that > one *is* chosen and that it is communicated clearly. > This is not a cardinal point to me, but I would have chosen the same > procedures as Adrian describe above. Those are what I have used with SVN, > and CVS before that. They worked and everybody did the same. > I believe it makes it easier for Mercurial newcomers to understand what is > happening. > During code freeze we could even accept patches on the "default" branch. > But, I'm happy with any branch procedure chosen, as long as it is clearly > stated somewhere.
When I do decide, I'll update all the applicable wiki pages and docs. Of course, having a policy that is easily "discoverable" is a plus as well. >> >> > This would make our bitbucket URLS look like >> > http://bitbucket.com/tortoisehg/thg/... and our repository would show >> > up as 'thg' instead of 'stable' when you follow it, etc. > > +1 > How about cloning http://bitbucket.org/peso/thg-installer/ to the tortoisehg > user? This would make it easier to find the complete set of thg-related > repositories. I'm hoping to do away with install mechanism soon, but you're right it should be under the tortoisehg account. > >> > The other big step will be moving the two python packages (hggtk and >> > thgutil) under a single tortoisehg package. > > I suppose this is to prepare THG for distribution > through http://pypi.python.org/pypi ? Mads originally brought up the idea. It's considered polite for any generic Python app to not consume too much of the global package space, and for it's Python packages to be clearly named. It wasn't a big deal when we were only being packaged by py2exe on Windows, but that is no longer the case. We should be getting picked up by a few Linux distributions in the near future. -- Steve Borho ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Tortoisehg-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tortoisehg-discuss
