On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Robert Collins wrote:
> Is there any benefit in the two lists? (Can we not just have the one
> squid cvs list to monitor?)
I see benefits of two lists, much in the same way as there is benefits in
having two (or more) source trees.
squid-cvs@squid-cache.org
Official commits that will be part of the next official release. This is
what most users monitoring the CVS is interested in.
squid-cvs@lists.sourceforge.net
Development versions & works in progress. Not yet in the official tree.
This is mostly interesting to developers and early adopters of works in
progress. Having this in the official list would clutter up things more
than needed I think, and may be quite onfusing to users not using a work
in progress development branch.
It would probably do good to have the sf list renamed to
squid-developer-cvs or something similar to not confuse it with the
"official" squid-cvs messages.
On another note, imo once a developer project gains the status that it is
suitable for more widespread usage work should be started on having it
integrated into HEAD. If that is not possible because HEAD is in extended
freeze mode then HEAD should be unfrozen either by forking a branch for
the frozen version or unfreezing the frozen version.
Regards
Henrik
Received on Wed Apr 14 2004 - 10:38:19 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 12:00:03 MDT