On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
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.
Preference i guess.
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,
We aren't done with 1.1 yet, so we'd still be "screwed." ;)
and you have to re-check out the branch
after every dot release, and so on.
Just posted the correct svn switch command on the other email. There
are no technical disadvantages.
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
...
I've done exactly that in cvs land, it's not bad.
Is that not what others are planning on?
Does anyone mind if I move branches/1.1.1 back to branches/1.1?
The trick is we aren't done with 1.1.
-David
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
