On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > Everything else would leave us with the need of forward-porting 50 new > > > features. If we stick to 1.3.xcvs we'd end up in the same situation as > > > the change tracking patch. Works for some ancient version only. > > > > > > 1.4.0cvs is stable enough for this kind of work. > > > > I was thinking more along the lines of giving the students a branch to > > work on... > > Merging small chunks is _much_ simpler than larger.
True. But why assume that the students work will be in one large patch? Shouldn't we demand that each student project results in a separate patch? > LyX has a bad history with branches (so far only one successful > 'large' merge IIRC) *shrug* > I see no benefit over a regualr 'cvs up'. You can revert your code and know that it _will_ work (I can't compile Qt any more...) and that's why I've decide to initially work (listings) against 1.3.3 and then port it to latest cvs. Please note that I'm not suggesting that they should work against 1.3.3 here, that's probably to old, but against some "frozen" version of latest-cvs that's known to compile for Xforms/Qt on whatever platform(s) the students will work on. Finally, speaking from my experience on actually using the results of what students produce, you often end up redoing their work... so let's be aware of that. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
