Hi Mark,
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 15:24 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> > > I guess I could keep it on my Github mirror until I have something
>> > > concrete enough to be merged to trunk.
>> > >
>> > I'd prefer to have it in HEAD as long as it's clearly marked as stubs
>> > (the NotImplementedException I mentioned) and there is work actively
>> > taking place.
>> > Then there's always the (slim) possibility someone else can work on it :-)
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 22:01 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> That was my original thinking as well. Does the included patch look
>> better to you? Mark, what do you think about this?
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Mark Wielaard <mark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I admit to still just not like stubs, however they are setup.
> If creating branches wasn't such a pain with CVS I would really
> recommend doing all this on a branch and only merge when ready and it
> can actually be used with some VM. I guess it is just time to bite the
> bullet and create some time to move to mercurial and setup some rules
> about how to create working branches. I won't veto getting this in right
> now if that is really what you and Andrew want, but I am not
> particularly excited either.
Well, I'd like to keep everyone involved excited so maybe Mercural
branch is the way to go here?
Pekka
