On Thursday 01 February 2007 02:54, Randy McMurchy wrote: > My belief (and I'm quite strong on this one) is that we should use > SVN in our best interests, which means for us (at least in my opinion) > that tags are a stagnant entity, but branches are meant to be used > for merges from trunk.
Just to give you my perspective from the LFS Release Manager side of things. I had this exact same discussion a while back with Archaic with regard to the LFS releases. I was mandating we follow the old CVS style workflow, where tags shouldn't/couldn't be updated. Discussing it with Archaic and Ben Collins-Sussman (a Subversion developer, on IRC), I soon got around to the SVN way of working and realized, like Randy, that the tool should be used to support our needs rather than our workflow having to "conform" to the tool's expectations. As SVN allows tags to be changed, why not make use of that feature? So, in short, I'd say copy trunk to a 6.2 tag, then update general.ent on the tag. That's how things are done on LFS, at least. Randy, if it'd help, I have a release-script.sh file in my home directory on quantum that helps me automate LFS releases. It may be possible to coax it to do a similar job for BLFS, if you think that'd be useful? I can't take the credit for that script though, it's all Archaic's fine work! Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
