On 03/21/2012 08:47 AM, Kai Engert wrote:
On 21.03.2012 14:26, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> Looking at the master branch, I see there landed the commit 07754ec,
> we (kdudka, emaldona, rcritten) had made an agreement that it was a
> bad idea.
As I recall preserving and accessing history was the reason in case
regression was yours and Rob's objection and I agreed. I don't mind
keeping the eriginal flat layout. On the other hand, the full path has
the advantage that it enables adding PEM related test tools and scripts
like, mozilla/security/nss/cmd/pemtestutil and
> I have removed (not reverted) this commit in the kdudka branch, while
> all other commits unchanged. I believe that the kdudka branch could
> now be
> made a master branch. Nobody from outside refers to the master
> branch anyway,
> so it should be (at least technically) quite trivial. Any objections?
Sorry, I have had no idea about branches. All I saw was that Elio's
git had several additional commits.
Out of curiousity, is there still need for separate branches in nss-pem?
I see a
use for them. I had thought of a creating one branch for
discussing patches dealing with the upstream submission while keeping
the main branch for inmediate need bug fixes.
If not, could you just make commits (or revert commits) as needed on
the master branch, to bring it into the state you want?
nss-pem-devel mailing list