Hi Przemek, > On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Szak�ts Viktor wrote: >> That would IMO be much more difficult to do than >> applying the selected patches only, since the > [...] > > I do not agree. I think that everything should be committed. > Maybe I'm wrong but I expect very serious troubles with HB_SIZE > and similar type modifications so I would like to give stable > Harbour version for users with all current features which I also > plan to use in my production environment. > If you want then I can try to merge all modifications except new > types to 2.0 branch.
I'm sure you can do it and do it right, but IMO our project would scale much better if such things could be done by new contributors, and Francesco gave it a pretty nice go. Plus I still don't feel confident to release all _my_ patches to 2.0.1, some were not tested thoroughly (hbwin, hbmk2), or cannot be yet considered as the ultimate final solution which I'd like to make any compatibility guarantees (hbwin), and I'm not thinking about HB_SIZE/HB_BOOL (which I still have to understand why worries you that much). BTW, just to repeat also for myself: the notion of minor (?.?.x) releases is to provide fixes-only and no new features (unless absolutely required, tested, and finalized), plus it should be binary compatible with ?.?.0. Anyway, I'd suggest to discuss this between you and Francesco, for me anything is good which is inline with basic ?.?.x release rules and produces a stable Harbour 2.0.1. Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
