Re: 2 versions of release notes
- To: Debian Installer <debian-boot@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: 2 versions of release notes
- From: Philip Blundell <philb@gnu.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:20:22 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] E16Qa4E-0000rD-00@kc.cam.armlinux.org>
- In-reply-to: Message from Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore-devel.com> of "30 Dec 2001 12:34:35 EST." <oa4rm8y5lg.fsf@arroz.onshored.com>
- References: <20011228043508.GB218@Obsession> <E16JuX3-00064D-00@kc.cam.armlinux.org> <oa4rm8y5lg.fsf@arroz.onshored.com>
In message <oa4rm8y5lg.fsf@arroz.onshored.com>, Adam Di Carlo writes:
>Philip Blundell <philb@gnu.org> writes:
>> In message <20011228043508.GB218@Obsession>, Chris Tillman writes:
>> >robster, who volunteered for the project, is committing changes in one
>> >branch at version 1.61.2.4, while others are working in the trunk at
>> >version 1.72. I suspect the differences are slight, but they should be
>> >merged?
>>
>> Right, yeah. Presumably this branch is the old "woody" one, and robster is
>> working on it by mistake?
>
>Yes, Josip Rodin builds the documentation which is used for
>www.d.o/dists/woody, and I can assure you he's not using the branch!
>So Robster better get his act together.
Has this been sorted out yet? From a quick look at the CVS logs it doesn't
appear so. The longer the branch stays forked the more of a mess it will be
when it's finally merged back.
p.
Reply to: