Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3DAC3EDF.345B2795@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:14:23 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: 2.03 vs 3.2
References: <10210141948 DOT AA19018 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
	 <30240030515 DOT 20021015122801 AT softhome DOT net>
	 <3DAC116D DOT 8DF6BDF7 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <162253722523 DOT 20021015161613 AT softhome DOT net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Helo.

Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
[snip]
> We're talking about slightly different things there - I mean if we
> will have to go through refreshes again in future, then IMHO it will
> be easier if say, trivial bugfixes, are checked into mainline and
> release branch at once. No need to search for them anymore, if need
> arises.
[snip]

Ah, OK, sorry. I thought you were talking about merging from 'main
development' branch (e.g.: current CVS) to a 'bugfix' branch (e.g.: 2.03). So
no merging would take place. That sounds much more pleasant.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]