OK, so I see David Blevins has now created branches/1.1.1. That still
wasn't what I expected. I expect branches/1.1 to be the 1.1.x HEAD at
all times. I don't expect us to continue to change it to
branches/1.1.1 branches/1.1.2 branches/1.1.3 etc. That has the same
disadvantages I originally noted, namely that if you have pending work
in the branch that you decide not to check in until after a release
then you're kind of screwed, and you have to re-check out the branch
after every dot release, and so on. I'm thinking more like
HEAD-----------------
`branches/1.1
`tags/1.1.0
`tags/1.1.1
`tags/1.1.2
`branches/1.2
`tags/1.2.0
`tags/1.2.1
`tags/1.2.2
`branches/1.3
...
`branches/2.0
`tags/2.0.0
`tags/2.0.1
`tags/2.0.2
...
Is that not what others are planning on?
Does anyone mind if I move branches/1.1.1 back to branches/1.1?
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/15/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>> Now we only have a 1.0 branch and a dead-1.2 branch? What's
>>> going on?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Aaron,
>> It was moved under tags/1.1.0.
>> Jay
>
> Comment from the peanut gallery...
> It is extremely poor form to modify 'tagged' releases. Once a
> release is tagged in SVN, it should not be changed, ever.
>
> Comment from the peanut gallery...
> It is extremely poor form to modify 'tagged' releases. Once a
> release is tagged in SVN, it should not be changed, ever.
We don't update tags.
> 1.1 should not have been tagged until after the vote to release 1.1
> passed. FWIW.
It's been our tradition to insist the releases are built from the tag.
-David
