On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 01:07:46PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Regarding the local-repository-branching issue you mentioned:
> I think there's general agreement that it's an important thing to
> support, but everything that comes before it is necessary
> understructure anyway. In other words, saying "We need to have this
> feature in the 1.0 release" would be more a matter of shifting the
> "1.0" label moment than about changing when implementation of the
> feature actually happens.
> Since our stated goal for 1.0 has simply been to support basically
> what CVS supports, this feature would go in the "immediate post-1.0"
Okay, this is fair. You might need more networking code that way, but
given your stated intention of making it be client-server even on a local
repository, you'll need it anyway.
> Along with "cvs annotate" functionality, local-repos branch
> support is probably our highest priority following the initial
Oh, did I mention that 'cvs annotate' is trivial with the SCCS file format?
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:05 2006