From: Adam T. <at...@re...> - 2008-02-06 17:52:54
|
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 05:46:09PM +0000, n0g0013 wrote: > On 06.02-22:59, Constantin Kaplinsky wrote: > [ ... ] > > > it may be that, upon analysis, it makes more sense to branch, replace > > > the xc with baracuda code and re-merge the tight extensions. > > > > That's a bad way to go. Moreover, I'd say it's unacceptable. There > > should be no "replacements", it should look like a sequence of small > > incremental changes. > > > > Also note that TightVNC extensions have nothing to do with the the > > unix/xc subtree, they are in common/rfb. > > which is exactly the point really, it should merge back seamlessly > and we would end up with the following. > > - import baracuda code > - branch "trunk" to "branches/tight-1_5-xorg" > - replace 'xc' with xorg mods from baracuda import > - (other changes and commits) > - merge back to current (with no conflicts of course! ;-) > > of course if adam is saying that the baracuda code is easier to merge > as individual patches then we'd drop item 1 and change item 3 above > to a series of commits. > > anyway, i'm well over my 2 cents at this stage. > As I told above I think I don't need branch for such changes. I'm going to create patches whose will be acceptable by you and send them there. Btw question is if you (or we? :) ) are going to support old XFree servers or only newer modular X Ada, -- Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc. |