incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mathias Bauer <Mathias_Ba...@gmx.net>
Subject Re: DEV300 vs OOO340 (was: fetch-all-cws.sh)
Date Thu, 07 Jul 2011 17:57:44 GMT
Hi Greg,

On 07.07.2011 04:09, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 05:20, Mathias Bauer <Mathias_Bauer@gmx.net> wrote:
>>...
>>> (guess the fact that yours is smaller is caused by me having used DEV300
>>> and you OOO340, so some CWSes that are empty for you have content for me)
>>
>> Indeed I got more empty cws because I checked against OOO340. As this is
>> the version we want to use, I updated cws-list.txt accordingly.
> 
> I wanted to highlight this particular fact.
> 
> Is there consensus that we will build the single Hg repository based
> on OOO340? (with separate bookmarks for all CWSs, pulled against that
> tag)
> 
> Previously, I had thought the consensus was DEV300_m106. I believe the
> choice here implies what "trunk" will end up as: DEV300 or OOO340. I
> thought that I'd heard there was work completed on DEV300 that is
> *not* part of OOO340. If that is true, then what should we do that
> work?
> 
> I have no opinion, but the fetch-all-cws.sh script is
> written/documented to work from a DEV300 repository. That will need to
> be updated.
> 
> 
> Also, to clarify: OOO340 is the hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340
> repository? And that I can get OOO340 by using the DEV300.hg bundle,
> then pulling from that repository?

does that mean that you are working on that and - even more important -
also on the generation of the svn dump?

Just to avoid work duplication!

Regards,
Mathias


Mime
View raw message