[Adium-devl] Leopard Tickets

[Chris Forsythe]

I've heard of mixed reviews of Git, and the trac integration just isn't 
there yet from what I can tell.

Also, how would we get around gpl violations with git? We'd still be 
releasing a version of adium with the changes required that would cause 
Sean to c&d us.

Chris

Ofri Wolfus wrote:

> Should I once again point on a DVCS for this? ;-)
> *cough* Git *cough*
>
> - Ofri
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> http://www.dpompa.com
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> On 14/06/2007, at 08:06, David Smith wrote:
>
>> Ahhh, then yes, I will be setting that up unless someone else does.
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:53 PM, k.gillard.10 at scu.edu.au 
>> <mailto:k.gillard.10 at scu.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>> I never said anything about releasing a binary... all I suggested  
>>> was we maintain a seperate, isolated repository from trunk with  
>>> patches that fix incompatibilities with Leopard.
>>>
>>> Kiel
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: David Smith <catfish.man at gmail.com <mailto:catfish.man at gmail.com>>
>>> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:33 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [Adium-devl] Leopard Tickets
>>> To: k.gillard.10 at scu.edu.au <mailto:k.gillard.10 at scu.edu.au>, Adium 
>>> Development mailing list <adium-devl at adiumx.com 
>>> <mailto:adium-devl at adiumx.com> 
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Kiel, we covered this earlier in the thread. We can't release
>>>> any
>>>> binaries built from this tree without violating our license (and
>>>> more
>>>> importantly libpurple's).
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 13, 2007, at 7:17 PM, k.gillard.10 at scu.edu.au 
>>>> <mailto:k.gillard.10 at scu.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why don't we set up a closed, private repository that allows
>>>>
>>>> Leopard
>>>>
>>>>> developers to apply patches to improve Adium's compatibility?
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, Catfish_Man could maintain a local
>>>>
>>>> repository
>>>>
>>>>> accessible only to him and he could receive patches from
>>>>
>>>> Leopard
>>>>
>>>>> devs improving Adium's compatibility. This would bypass the
>>>>
>>>> problem
>>>>
>>>>> of it violating NDA, etc, right? The code wouldn't be
>>>>
>>>> accessible to
>>>>
>>>>> the outside world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kiel
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Evan Schoenberg <evan.s at dreskin.net <mailto:evan.s at dreskin.net>>
>>>>> Date: Thursday, June 14, 2007 10:33 am
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Adium-devl] Leopard Tickets
>>>>> To: Adium Development mailing list <adium-devl at adiumx.com 
>>>>> <mailto:adium-devl at adiumx.com>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 13, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Andre-John Mas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there any way to have sparkle signal a mandatory update?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically> sparkle would warn that a critical upgrade is
>>>>>> available and that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> whatever the current version of Adium will not run, and
>>>>>>
>>>> refuse to
>>>>
>>>>>>> run, on 10.5. I realise it is a bit of a harsh approach, but
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> certainly another one to choose from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that's either necessary or a good plan -- one
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> certainly run with features disabled, whatever those features
>>>>>> may be.
>>>>>> Any request for support for anyone on 10.5 is going to be met
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> "please upgrade to the latest version" no matter what the
>>>>>> problem is :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Evan
>>>>>
>>>>> ______
>>>>