[Gtkradiant] Re: Gtkradiant Digest, Vol 22, Issue 12

[Michael]

e wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>  
> I am writing to inform the mailing list that I agree with the idea 
> regarding an "unstable codetree" or even a "project tree". There are 
> some talented people who would like to contribute to Radiant's 
> progress and I think that their supplemental ideas for the program 
> would be warmly received by the community.
>

...and you think they've not contributed their code because there isn't 
an unstable tree?

Personally I would say, get to the problem first [i.e, iff this mailing 
list had a ton of patches
crying out for merging from talented people] then you'd have the problem 
of merging them with whatever trees you've got.

Thing is, an unstable branch can't just take every patch "to test" - e.g 
most of the "unstable" linux kernel tree is stuff that's going in, not 
stuff that might.
To get testers or to get it considered for inclusion etc the patch 
itself needs to be somewhere.

But afaiaa, I thought cvs was the unstable branch - I thought the stable 
releases were done as and when as binaries etc from a website?

-- 
Michael.