On Feb 27, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Jason Perkins wrote:
On Feb 25, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Jamis Buck wrote:Just a word to the wise: if any of you are tracking Capistrano edge (and I have no idea how many people actually are), things are going to get pretty wild, shortly. I'm going to begin some massive refactorings, leading eventually to Capistrano 2.0, and I can guarantee that for the next little while Capistrano on edge will be virtually unusable (and will probably not even run). If you are tracking edge, I'd encourage you to track the stable branch, instead: http://svn.rubyonrails.org/rails/branches/capistrano_1-x-stableSlightly offtopic, but should the same tracking of the stable branch for Rails (<http://svn.rubyonrails.org/rails/branches/1-2-stable/>) be done, also? I ask because there are a lot of commentaries out there that have folks' Rails version tied to a tag (<http:// svn.rubyonrails.org/rails/tags/rel_1-2-2/>), instead of the current stable branch and want to clarify. The norm would seem to be to track the Rails 1.2 stable branch. Any insight or confirmation appreciated.
It depends on what you want. If your application is known to work with a specific release of Rails, and your app is no longer in active development, then it makes sense to tie it to a tag, since the tag won't be changing. However, if you are still developing your application and you want to automatically pick up any changes that are being made to the stable branch, and you can live with the occasional bug that invariably appears in any pre-release version of Rails, then it makes sense to tie to the branch.
It really just boils down to this: the tagged revisions are essentially immutable, while the branches can (and will) change over time, to reflect new features and bug fixes.
- Jamis
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
