samba-gtk as a separate tree?

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 22:00 +0100, Rafal Szczesniak wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 07:48:04PM +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > 
> > The only good reason for keeping the utilities I can think of is that
> > it lowers the boundary for users to check them out.
> > 
> > Any objections or other comments? If not, I'd like to remove the gtk+ utilities
> > from Subversion and maintain them as a separate Bazaar tree on
> > samba.org.
> 
> I'm fine with that.

This seems entirely reasonable, as long as they are in our build farm,
so we have some chance to know when we break them.

We should also get openchange into our build farm, for similar reasons.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.                  http://redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20070212/c83413bd/attachment.bin