Re: Oort Gnus branch

[Bruce Stephens <bruce+gnus@cenderis.demon.co.uk>]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

[...]

> IMHO, it would be better if the main trunk was always the most current
> development version.  This way, people who use CVS get to test the
> most current version -- that's what CVS is here for, right?  Also, I
> think we expect the 5.8/5.9 lines of development to be rather short,
> no?
> 
> I think this is the first time that a major release is begun while
> using CVS, isn't it?  If it wasn't the first time, we could have
> looked at how it was done previously.
> 
> Another thought is that maybe we would like to do it like Emacs does
> it.  So, how does Emacs handle the branches?

Don't know about Emacs, but XEmacs does it the wrong way around: the
new development is on a branch (release-21-2).  (There's a comment on
the web page somewhere that they plan to change this.)

Your initial paragraph describes it as it should be, IMHO: cut a
branch to support bug fixes and things for pgnus, and ognus should be
on the head.