LFS-6.0 print process
gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Jul 7 14:56:08 PDT 2004
On Wed, 2004-07-07 at 11:23, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I had planned to wait until the weekend to create the 'testing' branch,
> but it now makes more sense (to me at least) to have the testing branch
> act as both the 'testing' and 'print' branch, otherwise I fear we'll
> spread our resources too thinly and have to duplicate changes over too
> many branches.
Under the circumstances that seems like the best thing to do yes.
> > Likewise when changes to HEAD are made I'll pick them up if
> > applicable (for instance textual updates to things like
> > Acknowledgements, and whatever else).
> Lightly disagree here. If the changes are applicable to 'testing' then
> they should be made there in the first instance, then propogated
> upstream to 'unstable' if applicable. That way we avoid a possibly
> confusing 2 way syncing process. This doesn't halt development of
> unstable in any way - those changes that are *only* applicable to
> 'unstable' can still be made of course.
Understood. When I said that before I assumed testing was part of HEAD
and not a separate, but HEAD+testing being the same branch at the
moment, your proposal makes more sense.
/* If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem */
More information about the lfs-dev