On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:53:55PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Vincent Untz <vu...@gnome.org> wrote: > > Le mardi 05 mai 2009, à 01:51 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit : > >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Marc-André Lureau > >> <marcandre.lur...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Hi > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Felipe Contreras > >> > <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> [...] what is the point of having 'project' in the branch > >> >> name? Branches are per-repository, so you would never have a non > >> >> 'gtk-' branch in the GTK+ repo. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Not "project" but really "[project]-[MAJOR]-[MINOR]".. > >> > >> Yes, I meant why "project-major-minor" (gtk-2-17) when you already > >> know 'project'. What information would be lost with a '2-17' branch > >> name? > > > > Why should we change a policy we had for ages and which works fine? > > Because you just switched your SCM and it's the best time to do that?
To state more clearly: What is the benefit of switching? Does it outweigh the inconsistency of breaking current usage? > > Note that for GNOME modules specifically, having gnome-2-26 is important > > since it makes it clear that this is a branch for GNOME 2.26. Even if > > gvfs is at version 1.2, for example. > > I'm not sure the guidelines I've read mention that usage, but in any > case that's not a compelling argument; you can still have branches > '1-2' and 'gnome-2-26'. IMO you should make a good argument to switch, not the other way around. -- Regards, Olav _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list