"Erik Huelsmann" <e.huelsmann@gmx.net> writes:
> With this scheme almost all messages can be easily merged to the branch.
> Remain those messages for which there has been no translation on trunk, but
> which do exist on the branch. For code changes which cannot be committed to
> trunk and backported to a branch a patch is developed with which normal
> voting procedures apply. Since there is no voting requirement for porting
> translation changes from trunk to a branch, there would be no voting
> requirement for a patch like that. Without the need to vote it seems kind
> of silly to require the patch be made. Thus direct branch commits seem to
> follow from our own rules for this kind of change.
I think the part of the proposal that most wanted comments was this
paragraph. So here's my comment: I agree with your reasoning :-).
> I think that in this special instance branch commits are alright, since:
> - there is a pre-commit hook to catch the worst failures
> - the number of messages on a branch which have no translation (ever) on
> trunk is typically quite low
>
> Comments?
+1!
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 6 04:41:18 2004