From attila.lendvai at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 09:42:44 2008 From: attila.lendvai at gmail.com (Attila Lendvai) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:42:44 +0200 Subject: [local-time-devel] merging the 1.0 branch Message-ID: Daniel, from past experience (e.g. cffi) it creates major confusion if there's a long standing branch where all development happens and this branch is not the main one. recently i've started to see error reports due to people using the old local-time. what i propose is that we should record a tag in the old branch (e.g. "before big refactor") and push the patches after it. people who don't want the new stuff should simply not pull. maybe we should be more user friendly, and switch the two branches keeping a local-time-stable or local-time-old next to it for those who have production code based on local-time and want to receive fixes to the old codebase. any thoughts? -- attila ps: we are using local-time-1.0 without any trouble, although not in our production codebase yet. From dlowe at bitmuse.com Sat Aug 23 10:28:26 2008 From: dlowe at bitmuse.com (Daniel Lowe) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:28:26 -0400 Subject: [local-time-devel] merging the 1.0 branch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48AFE64A.4060303@bitmuse.com> Attila Lendvai wrote: > maybe we should be more user friendly, and switch the two branches > keeping a local-time-stable or local-time-old next to it for those who > have production code based on local-time and want to receive fixes to > the old codebase. Is there anyone but you using the old codebase? I'm fine with using a tag, myself. Let's go ahead and do it. : Daniel : From attila.lendvai at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 18:46:33 2008 From: attila.lendvai at gmail.com (Attila Lendvai) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:46:33 +0200 Subject: [local-time-devel] merging the 1.0 branch In-Reply-To: <48AFE64A.4060303@bitmuse.com> References: <48AFE64A.4060303@bitmuse.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Daniel Lowe wrote: > Attila Lendvai wrote: >> maybe we should be more user friendly, and switch the two branches >> keeping a local-time-stable or local-time-old next to it for those who >> have production code based on local-time and want to receive fixes to >> the old codebase. > > Is there anyone but you using the old codebase? I'm fine with using a tag, > myself. Let's go ahead and do it. ok, i've tagged the old repo and renamed it to local-time-pre-1.0. the 1.0 branch is now in the official tree, anyone pulling local-time will get all the new patches. -- attila