RE: [Squeak-VMdev] RE: Pending 3.2 and VM sources @ sourceforge

[Andreas R. <And...@gm...>]

G=F6ran,

> Hmmm, somewhere here it feels like I have missed some posting - I
> thought I was waiting for some feedback from you Andreas? :-)
> I am referring to my post beginning with the line "Long mail=20
> about CVS, branches, tags etc.".

That's to a large extent because I'm still digesting what you wrote.
Mind you, I'm no expert at CVS so it somewhat escapes me what a good
model for working in it could be (and that's also why I'm trying to take
you up on the your offer to write something up on it ;-)

Let's see if I got you right: You are basically proposing that there's a
main trunk in the repository which is guarded by the maintainer of the
port. Everyone else having commit permissions can happily hack away on
his or her branch. Merging works by a variety of models depending on
who's got what amount of time. Correct?!

There are a few points about this that I'm a bit unhappy with. One is
that it appears to me that working on a branch may be complicated. We
might argue that this is the price a person has to pay in order to get
write permission at SF but if so, we should all agree on it. Please
vote.

Secondly, I don't understand why somebody who wants to branch would need
to ask for permission to do so. After all, the main branch is unaffected
by this change, isn't it?! What am I missing?!

Thirdly, we may consider making up "new ports" instead of "long-living
branches". After all, some of the work that might be considered a branch
(since it has the same target platform) is rather an independent port.
Such as, for example, PhiHo's Mob VM. It shares a few files but it
appears to me that it is a separate port rather than a branch.

Cheers,
  - Andreas