I'm game.
And Karl, I hereby state my approval for you to go ahead and commit these
website related fixes and any other broken-link fixes you wish to commit in
the coming days. I've only seen one thing in your past N patches that I
would have done differently, so let's just cut out the middle man, shall we?
Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> sorry...not answered to the list.
>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>>
>>> Yeah, the great thing about always pointing at trunk is that it
>>> contains all
>>> the change records, so if you want to see what happened in other
>>> releases,
>>> the info is readily available.
>>>
>>> The bad thing is that it contains all the change records, so if you
>>> don't
>>> want to see what happened in other releases, you gotta dig some for the
>>> release you do care about.
>> Yes...that's a point...
>>>
>>> But here's my case for *not* linking against the tagged CHANGES
>>> items: we
>>> only push out new release notes for big X.Y.0 releases, yet folks
>>> refer to
>>> them as an explanation of what they are getting with any installation of
>>> Subversion from the X.Y lineage. It would be weird to download
>>> Subversion
>>> 1.6.9, read the 1.6 release notes, and then get pointed to a quite-stale
>>> 1.6.0 CHANGES list. So if we're going to do anything around these
>>> parts, we
>>> should be pointing to the CHANGES files as they exist in the release
>>> *branches* (e.g. branches/1.6.x/CHANGES).
>> That's a better solution for this...
>>
>> I would vote for that ...
>>
>> +1 from me...
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2010-03-02 17:08:18 CET