Christian MICHON, 26.01.2009: > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Milan Vancura <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > 5. what about a cooperation with Christian and pul his git tree as > >> > vim_upstream? There is no dependency on svn, nice tags for vim > >> > versions are > >> > there... Would it be possible? > >> > >> No, it wouldn't. > >> It looks nice at first sight, but it isn't really useful for > >> development. Look at the branches, they each have their own root, they > >> don't have any relation to each other. With Vim 7.3, the master branch > >> will be rewritten from scratch. You can't merge and forward-port the > >> feature branches to the next minor release. In fact you'd end up with a > >> rebase of all your branches as well. > > > > It would be nice if you two agreed on some simple system good for everyone. > > I > > think that the development of vim is, from its definition (just one > > committer) > > linear. So if there were tags for each versio of vim and patches named by > > their > > number and subject, one can find everything in history easily. We don't > > probably need no branches for upstream vim, we need them for paralel > > development like patch sets of other authors etc. > > And with patches named with their number (and subject), we will not need so > > many tags... > > I asked Markus his requirements: his answers show a trend hard to > satisfy.
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I don't see a problem in satisfying my requirements. Or do you mean, we can't arrange our different requirements in one tree? There I agree. > I also know from vim cvs the current existing linear flow. Please read my mail again. There was actually one place, where I said, branching could be necessary, for now. Markus --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
