Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: RE: setup goals
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 18:04:15 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Message-ID: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5FFD@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>,
   "Cygwin-Apps" <cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g4785c503090



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary R. Van Sickle [mailto:g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 11:55 AM

> > Patches to HEAD that break the first two goals, will only 
> be accepted 
> > on a 'temporary break until xyz' basis. Patches to HEAD (or 
> checkings 
> > from non-reviewed committers such as
> > Chris) that break the first two will be accidental (I hope!).
> [snip]
> > Lastly, on development branches, anything goes, I don't care if a 
> > development branch even builds. (Currently we don't have any 
> > development branches).
> 
> ...I either completely *don't* agree with this or am confused 
> as to the accepted practices in CVS land.  Isn't HEAD sorta 
> the local (to the maintainer) development 'branch' for the 
> next revision?  If not, what's the non-HEAD trunk for?  
> Shouldn't people be submitting patches to non-HEAD instead of HEAD?

Anyone here should be submitting patches against HEAD. If we setup (no
pun intended) a sub-project to develop something new, then we might make
a branch just for that - a development branch - that is allowed to be
completely broken if needed. Like I said, we don't have any of those at
the moment.

Rob