Hi,
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 08:22:24AM -0400, case wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2010, Jason Swails wrote:
> >
> > This seems to be a bigger risk way back in the days of CVS. With how easy
> > it is to create new branches, and the fact that we have an amber11 branch, I
> > think makes it easier to create consistent patches from a static code base,
> > as long as changes that are NOT turned into patches are not added to that
> > tree. That being said, I don't want to add anything to the amber11 tree
> > that will NOT turn into a bug fix, so should I unstage and discard the fix
> > that I made to my local amber11 tree rather than pushing it?
>
> Yes. The "amber11" branch is reserved for amber11 + published bug fixes.
>
> Although you could (in principle) have a local "amber11" branch that
> diverges from the official one, that is dangerous, since some future push
> might do more than you intend.
I notice that some published bugfixes for AT 1.4 have been committed
into the amber11 branch, eg bugfix 10, and some have not, eg bugfix 6.
Is there a specific protocol ?
thanks,
scott
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Fri Feb 11 2011 - 01:30:02 PST
