Re: [OctDev] state of octave-forge code

[David B. <Dav...@mo...>]

Paul Kienzle a =E9crit :

>
> 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=20
>> and a 2.9 branch right now, where 2.1 branch will follow the MAIN=20
>> branch at the start, and when 2.9 goes into testing we merge the 2.9=20
>> branch 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.

It depends on really on what the people who will be developing the=20
changes want, so I wouldn't just do such a change, but raise a=20
discussion to see what others want...

D.