From: Felix <fx...@gm...> - 2004-03-17 22:33:38
|
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:21:36 -0600 ajax <aj...@nw...> wrote: > On Wednesday 17 March 2004 05:12, Felix K=FChling wrote: >=20 > > > dri branches will also need to apply this patch > > > > I don't like that. Can branches still keep their own copy of the old > > DRM? I'm particulary thinking of the s3virge branch which is > > unmaintained at the moment. I'm not sure if it even builds, but if it > > does it would be nice to keep it that way until someone picks it up. >=20 > I just checked. It doesn't. >=20 > make[6]: *** No rule to make target `../shared/at_scancode.c', needed by= =20 > `at_scancode.c'. Stop. >=20 > etc. >=20 > However, Jon has done the right thing by saying "this is what branches ne= ed to=20 > do to get working again". They shouldn't need to patch _now_, but knowin= g=20 > what needs to be done in the future makes it possible to revive sleeping= =20 > branches. >=20 > I think CVSBranches on the wiki needs to be reorganized into several sect= ions=20 > (current, sleeping, and obsolete) to reflect this; current would stay abo= ut=20 > the same, sleeping would be things like savage and s3virge, and obsolete= =20 > would be merged branches (r200) or abandoned branches (dmx, smt). The=20 > sleeping ones could be annotated with links to mailing list posts describ= ing=20 > the major changes. >=20 > If that sounds acceptable, let me know so I can rework CVSBranches. I just read the page for the first time ;-), I think with your changes. Two corrections WRT the savage-2-0-0-branch: the savage-2-0-0-branch is merged and savage-2-0-0-fork is not a branch. It's just a tag that marks the point where the branch was started. >=20 > - ajax >=20 Regards, Felix |