discussion about trunks, branches & twigs - CHDK Releases - CHDK Forum

discussion about trunks, branches & twigs

  • 2 Replies

Offline ewavr

  • ****
  • 1057
  • A710IS
discussion about trunks, branches & twigs
« on: 05 / July / 2008, 10:13:06 »
viewpix: the collaborative CHDK build has everything the trunk ("allbest build") has, and a lot of tweaks & additions.

I thought that  collaborative build is 'trunk' :o


Offline Jucifer

  • *****
  • 251
  • [A710IS]
discussion about trunks, branches & twigs
« Reply #1 on: 05 / July / 2008, 10:37:20 »
(So... should the juciphox branch be copied to trunk sooner than later? ;)

edit: Sorry, a bit off topic... :]


Offline PhyrePhoX

  • *****
  • 2254
  • make RAW not WAR
    • PhyreWorX
Re: discussion about trunks, branches & twigs
« Reply #2 on: 05 / July / 2008, 22:25:57 »
well, the "official" developers didnt really have a clear word on this matter (yet), they even more or less ignored my "feature list thread", so i guess they just do what they are supposed to do: develop & don't get involved with "politics" ;)
ewavr, we created the branch to be able to a) work together as a team (since both Juci & I had our own projects which grew continually larger and larger and harder to keep track of) and b) invite other people to take part in chdks development (jucifer gathers and collects code from a lot of places and contributors, kudos to that!) and of course c) to introduce new features and d) finally include them into the official trunk of course. that's the beauty of branching, you have a "test" branch you can put all sorts of untested code in, people test it, comment it. when it is through with "QA (quality assurance :D)" you then merge the changes to the main trunk. now i'm very sure you know the whole concept of versioning, trunks & branches, so i won't go into detail here.
as of now, the "juciphox" (just a temp name, the build itself is called CHDK in the makefiles) branch represents the "allbest" (trunk) version, plus a zillion other features. Some of these features do break compatibility with older builds, especially scripts. this needs to be explored in more detail.
also we need proper documentation, so that one day we can merge into the trunk.
we didnt implement the whole list of new features into main trunk yet because there are just too many of them. plus, we'd like to have some feedback of course ;)

p.s: created new thread.


Related Topics