On Wednesday 15 of October 2014 10:58:58 Michele Calgaro wrote: > >> - bug 2152: I haven't look at the details, but based on the two commits > >> already made by Slavek it should not take long to fix. > > > > Yeah, I was already looking at it. I'm tentatively working on digikam if > > you or Slavek want to tackle koffice. > > I will not work on this bug since I want to complete bug 1859 first and > eventually join bug 1850. > I have currently working on patches from bug 2110 and at the same time on the modifications tdebase in tde-packaging. As a result of renaming the icons need to be updated - now causes FTBFS. > > Short answer: If I can technically make branching work in a somewhat > > intuitive manner without overloading the servers Slavek's option 2 sounds > > best. This means we won't branch at this point anyway, so I have a bit > > of breathing room to work on the site and such before RC1 release. > > In the worst case, I think it would be a good idea to at least create a > temporary "development branch" where patches can be pushed while the > hard freeze is in place for v14.0.0. After v14.0.0 is released, the > changes made can be merged into the main trunk. > I am afraid that with the branches is the same as with the tags - after creating on the server branch synchronizes to users, but after remove on the server users will have to worry about removing branch == all the users themselves. This is not good. Therefore, I am not a fan of temporary branches on the server. > Cheers > Michele > -- Sl�vek