Rodney Sparapani writes:
On 02/14/11 01:15 PM, Mike Kupfer wrote:
> I don't think you did anything wrong. 5dd1ba5e0113 is in
, but not
. (Pushes are done to the
> "xemacs" repo, then given a little soak time before being made available
> from the "xemacs-beta" repo.)
AFAIK, xemacs-beta is no longer being updated, because it turned out
that xemacs only very rarely stayed unbuildable across an xemacs-beta
update boundary. VCSes don't provide a way to say that, though.
Maybe we should rename the xemacs-beta repo (eg,
obsolete.xemacs-beta), and alias xemacs-beta to xemacs.
That sounds backwards?!? But, I suppose it's documented that
haven't played around with hg myself.
Backwards from some points of view, yes, eg, if you think of "xemacs"
as the release branch. The view that drove this naming scheme is that
the "xemacs" repo knows everything about recent XEmacs development,
while xemacs-beta is not told about the most recent patch(es) until
they're known to at least build for somebody other than the committer.
XEmacs-Beta mailing list