Site repository status(es)

[Matt Revelle]

I agree with Timmy, the project is unstable enough that only one
branch is needed.  If darcs supports tags, that can be used to mark
milestones of stability or feature additions and provide an archive of
those releases.

Funny, googling for "darcs" and "tags" showed this on the first page of results:

http://lists.tunes.org/archives/slate/2005-March/001271.html



On 7/18/06, Timmy Douglas <timmy+slate at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> "Brian T. Rice" <water at tunes.org> writes:
>
> > So, to that end, how about I set up "stable" vs "unstable" vs "???"? Would
> > removing the main/alpha branches once these are set up (and described on
> > the website) annoy too many people in the wrong way? Is there something
> > else I should do entirely?
> >
> > I want to fix Slate on the limited time/attention I have right now, and I
> > don't care how much change/compromise it takes to do that, so please speak
> > your minds.
>
> Well, from my point of view (which is probably limited by the fact
> that I haven't maintained any projects before), I think slate is
> already 'unstable' enough in the sense that it won't be usable to the
> general public for a fair amount of time. For this reason I think it's
> enough that there is just one branch, main, and then someone would tar
> up the darcs file and make a static link somewhere for people to play
> with. If there's just one branch, I think it will be easier to stop
> the random breakages... but I don't really know from experience. I
> think most users that want to play with it don't want to fool with
> checking out a darcs repository even though they are becoming more
> common nowadays.
>
>