Path fixes

[Denys Duchier]

Torsten Anders <torstenanders at gmx.de> writes:

> Sorry for not following any standard procedure,

there's no standard procedure... so you are entirely forgiven ;-)

> Do you suggest I do a svn branch the next time?

I think so: for us developers, it's probably an ok model.  Branching in svn is
cheap and we can have "thow away" branches simply by using "svn delete BRANCH"
when we are done with them.

Unfortunately, the fact that svn is "centralized" means that non-developers
won't be able to create branches.  This is one reason I believe bzr is vastly
superior.  I am currently looking at the possibility of a bidirectional gateway
between svn and bzr.  I'll let you know if I get anywhere.

> How did this happen before?

not so well :-)  with CVS, branches are expensive; so we could not use a
"branching" approach to fixing bugs or implementing small features.  We did it
the old fashioned way: we talked about it to get patches vetted or vetoed.

> The little temporary package provided (Path.tgz) was intended to serve as a
> simple branch. Of course, there is no edit history. Nevertheless, I added some
> temporary explanation for the most  important changes.

ah, er... I haven't looked in Path.tgz yet, sorry.

> Juergen Stueber actually did that for Mozart in 2004. I think he announced that
> on the mailing list. I still have his sources on my machine. It may not be fit
> for every purpose, but it would be a start..

Perhaps.  Does anyone have time to look into this?

Cheers,

--Denys