Taking in to consideration the comments both here and on the ASF lists I think it prudent to modify our approach here.
Ethan Jucovy actually suggested that: "core patches could be submitted upstream and locally maintained in a Mercurial patch queue or a Git fork with a very branchy workflow which is used as the underlying dependency for Bloodhound trunk development, while the rest of the project proceeds in an Apache Subversion repository." I think this approach makes sense. Effectively forking the core in Edgwall and using that as the upstream into Apache Bloodhound. I think this is workable from our perspective initially. We may need to take pieces into Apache over time but we will just have to wait and see. Overall the debate was good, thank you to everyone that participated -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en.
