The day of seperation is here

[F@lk Brettschneider]

Christian Couder wrote:

> On Thursday 28 March 2002 00:12, Falk Brettschneider wrote:
> >
> > Roland Krause wrote:
> >
> > >My conclusion is:
> > >
> > >I would like to make KDEVELOP_2_BRANCH into HEAD and move gideon into
> > >GIDEON_BRANCH.
> >
> > YES!
> >
> > I additionally suggest to keep the directory structure of Gideon for
> > that ported stuff. This trick would us allow to work without the later
> > merging of HEAD and GIDEON_BRANCH, at least partially. I mean the
> > GIDEON_BRANCH could use 'cvs update -dPA' in the shared directories. In
> > this way development for those code would be on one cvs branch (HEAD).
>
> Sorry, but I think it is both more complex and more unfair than just having
> both KDevelop and Gideon in the same HEAD branch.

>
> (Of course it was both unfair and complex to have Gideon in the HEAD branch
> and KDevelop in another branch, but that's not a good reason to just change
> places and make the same mistakes again ;)

No, don't mix it up, it's not the same as last year. That time it wasn't a
change of places but a _remove_ of code. (I accepted it, have waited for a
good time for rejoining to that but the project has just died since a half
year.)

Well, isn't it more complex to have two versions in the same branch? Then
you'll get new problems like what application should be taken when you press
Build, Run, Debug in the .kdevprj project. I think KDevelop2 and Gideon are
two different attempts to get a new KDevelop version - so they belong in
different branches.

Anyway, now the base libraries and base classes are shared in both KDevelop
development subteams. That's why I suggest to just _partially_ _branch_ in a
GIDEON_BRANCH to avoid unnecessary cvs merging. Just don't tag the shared
stuff with the GIDEON_BRANCH label.

Ciao
F at lk



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com