www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
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> | |
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/ ]
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |