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

[Rob W. <rwi...@at...>]

"Lex Spoon" <le...@cc...> wrote:
> 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.

That works and is safe.  Either the cvs diff or the cvs update will both
inform you which files are modified, so you can make sure you don't
commit anything accidentally.

BTW, did my unix commits look ok to you, for VMMaker32-7.5?

> 
> 
> "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.

I think we just tag the main trunk for the major releases.  This way we
can get back to that point for testing reported bugs, etc.  I pretty
much see everyone hacking in the trunk and this will cause ongoing
problems of inconsistent platform support for new features.  We have
been fighting this since day one of using SF with VMMaker, but the
response time is typically very short.   I don't know how we can resolve
this. 

Cheers,
Rob