On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 23:47 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > 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?
Because somebody might want to commit something for Pango 1.2.5. Bear in mind that, even if developers aren't planning anything else for a stable series, translators and documentation writers might still add things. -- Shaun _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
