From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5002 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2001 09:28:22 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 6 Jun 2001 09:28:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 2381 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2001 09:28:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 14734 Received: (qmail 2288 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2001 09:27:54 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: candle.brasslantern.com: schaefer set sender to lantern@best.com using -f From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <1010606092502.ZM1006@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:25:02 +0000 In-Reply-To: <001801c0ee57$65d8db10$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> Comments: In reply to "Andrej Borsenkow" "Patch/integration policy" (Jun 6, 11:07am) References: <001801c0ee57$65d8db10$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97) To: "ZSH Workers Mailing List" Subject: Re: Patch/integration policy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 6, 11:07am, Andrej Borsenkow wrote: } } Now with forked CVS we have to decide } } Posting - should patches be posted for both stable and development? Patches should be posted for the development branch only, IMO. It's not a problem to post both as long as they're labeled appropriately, but the development version is called that for a reason ... } Integration - are patch authors responsible for applying them to both } branches? Or we designate some person(s) who will maintain stable } version and integrate patches fron HEAD while other will continue in } HEAD as before? The second of those would be preferable, I think, though there's no way we can actually prevent anyone who has commit access from doing the first. -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net