On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:18:43PM -0500, Rusty Foster wrote: > I think the plan was that we were going to split into the CURRENT and > STABLE branches. CURRENT would have the latest stuff, but may not be > working or stable, and STABLE would have only features that had been > tested out by others in CURRENT and reviewed by a maintainer. > > CT was going to be setting this up and explaining to us how to use it > properly, which should be soon. But I think that plan does address the > "too many cooks" problem and creates a good CVS policy, which I agree > that we do need. Sounds like a good plan. I've been holding off checking in anything but bugfixes, but my tree is getting more and more out of sync with CVS, which makes commiting bug fixes harder. Some sort of plan for checking stuff into the STABLE tree would be good as well. A checklist of things to check. A start would be 1. Add any extra vars/blocks/boxes in an update patch 2. Add those same vars/blocks/boxes to scoop.sql 3. Does the patch need documentation changes as well 4. Any new modules are added to Bundle::Scoop & startup.pl Any more? -- http://www.hulver.com/scoop/ Hulver's site. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.kuro5hin.org/pipermail/scoop-dev/attachments/20040105/66d4998f/attachment.bin