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

[Lex S. <le...@cc...>]

rwi...@at... wrote:
> Heh.  This is what I did this morning for the changes, 
> but I had to re-checkout the toplevel to add 
> osExports.c.  Of course, I had done a 'cvs diff squeak', 
> first, to verify that I was only commiting the files I 
> had planned on commiting.
> 

If I commit a whole directory, I cd to platforms/unix first.  Usually,
though, I commit one file at a time, anyway.


"Andreas Raab" <And...@gm...> wrote:
> 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.

I'm not happy with it, either.  We are making this more complicated than
it deserves.  Are we truly going to maintain old versions?  And which VM
heads *truly* want to manage merging patches in?  I bet it's just one. 
We all do realize, don't we, that it is very easy to revert changes that
you don't like?

But the tides are moving.  We may as well do it that way I suppose, just
to have a point of agreement.



-Lex