On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM, DavidRichards <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 Thanks David. I'm looking forward to seeing how Bloodhound progresses. -Ethan -- 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.
