Indan Zupancic wrote:
It is as if the devil plays with it... 5 minutes after I upload my latest patches, CVS gets updated and the patch does not apply anymore.
Oh so funny. :)
I saw you updated your patch today, and the first thing I thought was: Why didn't Frank say that he used the CVS version of yesterday, because CVS didn't change for two days, and _if_ CVS would be updated today, there will be problems.
That is what the website is for. The name on the patch is the date it is released, the CVS date is the last date CVS is changed. The patch is always based on CVS for the release date (right before I release a patch I update CVS and reconcile any differences, if the differences are big I delay the patch to test the changes), but CVS is not always updated on that day (as you noticed). FYI, the CVS date/time I give is the date/time stamp for the src/ directory. Using CVS features is nice, but have you noticed how many (or few...) people even know how to get source from CVS in the first place? I want the patch to get exposure to as many people as possible, and including the source on which it is based is one way of doing that. Another way would be to release a patched source tree, but I prefer the patch + clean approach.
Could you reply to the CVS offer from Trent Jarvi and say what you think about a CVS branch? See:
http://lists.auriga.wearlab.de/pipermail/dillo-dev/2003-November/001470.html
I noticed that posting, have been busy lately hence did not post reply. As there are only two active patch developers at this moment I think we do not need a CVS branch. It should be possible to synchronise releases for two patches. Of course, having a branch on the main Dillo CVS or elsewhere would not hurt, and I do not oppose it. I just think we can do without it for the moment. Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank@unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]