At Thursday 29 July 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> > > +* There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for
> > > new developments. + They should be based off of a common
> > > ancestor of all active branches to + which the feature should
> > > be merged later. The next branch may se
At Thursday 29 July 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Stefano, Eric,
>
> thanks for the review!
Hello Ralf.
Sorry for the late answer, I missed your message somehow.
> > I like the wording. However, I'd also like to see a simple
> > example, such as the one you provided me with in a previous ma
Hi Stefano, Eric,
thanks for the review!
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:34:32PM CEST:
> At Tuesday 27 July 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> > +* The git tree currently carries a number of branches: master for the
> > + current development, and release branches named branch
On 07/27/2010 01:43 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Stefano, all,
>
> I've rewritten the HACKING section on development with git a bit to
> better reflect what I currently think is a good way to go on. Patch
> for maint. Comments appreciated.
>
> FYI, I am waiting for regenerating the in-tree f
r regenerating the in-tree files with Autoconf
> 2.67 until the official tarballs have come out.
See the "tangential issue" below about this...
> Thanks,
> Ralf
>
> Document current policy for development with git.
>
> * HACKING (Working with git): Over
have come out.
Thanks,
Ralf
Document current policy for development with git.
* HACKING (Working with git): Overhaul.
Prompted by suggestion from Stefano Lattarini.
diff --git a/HACKING b/HACKING
index ee85917..8facbeb 100644
--- a/HACKING
+++ b/HACKING
@@ -92,28 +
