Re: [OctDev] state of octave-forge code

[Paul K. <pki...@us...>]

On Jun 13, 2005, at 8:21 AM, David Bateman wrote:

> Paul Kienzle a =E9crit :
>
>> Presumably we should maintain a separate branch in CVS for those who=20=

>> don't want to do the 2.9.x upgrade and are interested in backporting=20=

>> bug fixes.  That won't be me.
>
>
> I feel the main branch in the CVS should probably be the 2.9.x code,=20=

> but that might be too agressive at the start with octave 2.9 still=20
> considered as unstable. For that reason I'd suggest creating a 2.1 and=20=

> a 2.9 branch right now, where 2.1 branch will follow the MAIN branch=20=

> at the start, and when 2.9 goes into testing we merge the 2.9 branch=20=

> into the main branch.

If that is easy to do feel free to do so.

Having no experiences with branches I would keep it simple, using the=20
trunk for 2.9 and leaving it to the 2.1 folks to deal with branches.

- Paul