On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Behdad Esfahbod <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/05/2009 04:12 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Behdad Esfahbod >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> case that's not a compelling argument; you can still have branches >>>>> '1-2' and 'gnome-2-26'. >>> >>> Quick note. If we're going to have short branch names (as I'm planning >>> to >>> use for pango), it should be "1.2", not "1-2". >> >> Yeap, IMHO pango-1-2< 1-2< 1.2< stable > > It's nice to have "stable", but we need a fixed name for those branches too. > I'd love to see "stable" always be an alias for the latest stable branch, > but that doesn't obviate the need for "1.2" or pango-1-2.
Yes, if you *must* have a branch for each single stable major release you have, then it would be nice to have another branch (pointer) to the latest one. However, why do you need a "1.2" branch when you already have a PANGO_1_2_4 tag? -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
