Re: gEDA-dev: Some gschem misfeatures noted this morning (10.5.2006)

[Peter Clifton <pcjc2-at-NOSPAMcam_dot_ac_dot_uk>]

On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:30 -0400, Stuart Brorson wrote:
> IMO, you could name the DBUS stuff "DBUS".   The normal stuff for
> xgsch2pcb (i.e. my little feature requests) should just go into a
> "main" branch.  Personallly I am a little wary about DBUS simply
> because it requires a later versino of GTK.  We can talk about that at
> great length in a different thread when I have time.  I'm not against
> it, but I do worry about distro compatability/install/support issues.
> Therefore, I tend to regard your non-DBUS stuff as the main branch.
> THat's my $0.02.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Stuart

I feel rude asking for advice and then ignoring it, but since I'd
already started to put DBUS stuff in HEAD, I decided to go with my
original plan of branching a V1_X branch at the V1_0 tag (from before I
started looking to add DBUS stuff in CVS).

I've applied the patches from PeterB to the V1_X branch, although the
version number is still V1.0 in configure.ac. I guess it can stay that
way until we "release" a V1.0.1

(I numbered the dbus variant V1.1, but that could change I guess. I
didn't want to bump the major version though, as this is still very
alpha) Perhaps a date-based versioning system might have been a better
idea, although that doesn't help with different branches.

Peter




_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
geda-dev@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev