renaming branch 0.10 to trunk

[diver]

as the branch/0.10 includes all changes from trunk and a lot fixes, I vote for renaming branch/0.10 to trunk. Of course the current trunk should be copied to branch first.

[Lewis Rosenthal]

Email sent to KO to solicit his input, here.

[KO Myung-Hun]

If so, correct process is to merge 0.10 branch to trunk. So, I don't agree.

However, because 0.10 branch is maintained by valerius(Valery), and trunk has many contributions from erdmann(Lars), if they agree to do this, it would be fine.

Unfortunately, I have no idea to invite them to this discussion. Anyone can do this ?

[Lewis Rosenthal]

Email sent to Lars for comment.

[erdmann]

I have no objections to make the 0.10 branch the trunk. But as diver suggested I propose to make the currently existing trunk a branch so that we always have a chance to look back in time.

[KO Myung-Hun]

How about Valery ?

[Valery V. Sedletski]

I merged trunk with 0.10, so now 0.10 should contain all changes from trunk, including Lars' chandes to FS_MOUNT and FS_WRITE and komh's changes to cache code. (But I commented-out several questionable edits, and temporarily disabled the cache code init, because it hangs on the semaphore with branch 0.10 code). So, I am not against of renaming 0.10 to trunk, if Lars and komh agreed (If there will be no conflicts. For example, I added the up to 4 gb file support, and up to 64 kb clusters support to my branch, and plan to convert fat32.ifs to a 32-bit IFS in the future, so, others may not argee...)

[KO Myung-Hun]

Oh, good...

I'll rename 0.10 branch to trunk, and trunk to trunk-old branch, soon.

Any objections ?

[diver]

nope as thats what I proposed go ahead asap.

[KO Myung-Hun]

Done by r165 and r166.

Switch your working copy correctly.