You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by "Malte S. Stretz" <ms...@gmx.net> on 2004/01/04 15:18:34 UTC
Where to fix the stable branch
Moin,
some time ago, the discussion went if the stable branch was completely
CLA-covered and that we might continue fixing that one on SF.net.
What's the resolution with this, ie. if I want to fix something there should
I commit to CVS or SVN?
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
Re: Where to fix the stable branch
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:03:32PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> I faintly remember that there was some code in 2.6x which wasn't in HEAD
> anymore and thus Justin didn't send any CLA requests to these people.
That must have been taken care of (or overlooked) since the 2.6x branch
was in Justin's "CLA ok" repo archive.
I've been applying stuff to SVN though, treating CVS as a dead donkey.
It also means more testing for SVN and hopefully a faster move to the
real non-test repo. Once that happens, btw, we'll want to update the
docs and webpage and such to point at SVN instead of CVS).
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"Depends on how you define 'always'. :-)" - Larry Wall
Re: Where to fix the stable branch
Posted by "Malte S. Stretz" <ms...@gmx.net>.
On Sunday 04 January 2004 18:27 CET Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:10:15AM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> > I've started to really like SVN personally...
Me too; I already love it :) Especially that you can say 'svn up' without
typing your password.
> > but we probably should
> > keep the non Apache stuff at sf.net. So I'd say that 2.62 should be
> > done from CVS.
>
> Well, SVN is a copy of the CLA-covered parts of CVS, which was cleaned
> up pre-move to SVN.
>
> There's 100% no reason to use CVS at this point unless you want to work
> on the non-CLA stuff in the other modules (asfpurgatory, etc.)
I faintly remember that there was some code in 2.6x which wasn't in HEAD
anymore and thus Justin didn't send any CLA requests to these people.
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
Re: Where to fix the stable branch
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:10:15AM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> I've started to really like SVN personally... but we probably should
> keep the non Apache stuff at sf.net. So I'd say that 2.62 should be
> done from CVS.
Well, SVN is a copy of the CLA-covered parts of CVS, which was cleaned
up pre-move to SVN.
There's 100% no reason to use CVS at this point unless you want to work
on the non-CLA stuff in the other modules (asfpurgatory, etc.)
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Broken guitar for sale - no strings attached.
Re: Where to fix the stable branch
Posted by Duncan Findlay <du...@debian.org>.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:18:34PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> some time ago, the discussion went if the stable branch was completely
> CLA-covered and that we might continue fixing that one on SF.net.
I've started to really like SVN personally... but we probably should
keep the non Apache stuff at sf.net. So I'd say that 2.62 should be
done from CVS.
> What's the resolution with this, ie. if I want to fix something there should
> I commit to CVS or SVN?
Probably CVS.
--
Duncan Findlay