Re: commit notices from my squid arch archive

On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 02:38, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> 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.

Mmmm, I don't, simply because unlike source trees, commit messages don't
conflict with each other :}.

> 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.

Could we move it onto the squid server perhaps?
squid-devel-changes@squid-cache.org, and document it on the squid-cache
website?

> 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.

Completely agreed.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.