Em Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:46:29 -0500, Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> >> I think you should use "branch" capability of CVS. As long as you stay > >> away from HEAD branch, your development version in the CVS will not be > >> published. (I now copy development version from other CVS after > >> checking their consistency. Once alioth is up, I will change my > >> behaviour.) > > Osamu isn't really clear here. The way CVS works, the development > copy should be the HEAD and the branch should be for stable versions. > The mainline where development always must be the HEAD. This is > especially necessary if you have pretty active development. Indeed. But the way debian-doc's stuff was handled, AFAIK, HEAD was built automatically for the main page. > Personally I find branching to be far too much work. If you simply > want a way to indicate which version in CVS is the released version, > you should use CVS tags. This is a widely established practice; e.g., > this is how cvs-buildpackage works. Cool for me, too. But I'd still prefer having something like a place to upload releases or someway to say which tag is used as 'release'. > Unfortunately cvs-buildpackage doesn't provide a tag meaning, "latest > release". For instance, 'debian_version_latest'. So we'd have to > come up with such a tag and implement it and get all the authors to > implement it. That would be good, but would that mean untagging the previous last version before that? Thanks! -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha <http://people.debian.org/~kov> Debian: <http://www.debian.org> * <http://www.debian-br.org> "NÃo deixe para amanhÃ, o WML que vocà pode traduzir hoje!" http://debian-br.alioth.debian.org/?id=WebWML
