Re: [Cppqed-support] separate branches for stable and development

[Andras V. <and...@ui...>]

Dear Raimar,
Agreed.
However, we should identify the present main branch with either the stable
or the development. I don’t know which one is better. Perhaps it should be
the stable, since in that case the users do not need to meddle with branch
names when downloading.
Best regards,
András



Dr. Andras Vukics
Institute for Theoretical Physics
University of Innsbruck


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Raimar Sandner
<rai...@ui...>wrote:

> Dear András,
>
> I think we should introduce two branches beneath cppqed, one called
> "stable"
> and one "development". I will continue to use the development version in
> daily
> work to test it, then we can merge to stable from time to time. Eventually
> stable leads up to releases. Casual users or course participants can be
> directed to download the stable branch.
>
> At the moment there seem to be several problems with our official branch
> which
> prevent compilation for example with gcc-4.4 (I will investigate this and
> report back). The development branch will help to catch problems which are
> not
> immediately visible.
>
> Best regards
> Raimar
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer
> Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013
> and get the hardware for free! Learn more.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb
> _______________________________________________
> Cppqed-support mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppqed-support
>