Mike Taylor wrote: > chandler/ > branches/ > Chandler_0.6/
I think the Chandler_ part there would not be needed. It is the Chandler
repository after all. And I believe developers, when they create their
short lived branches, are very clearly distinguishable from a version
number (the developers name, or the name of the work being done on the
branch etc.).
> I name it Chandler_0.6 to make it clear that it's Chandler and that it's
> not a release tag. When a release is ready what I then do is create a
> 0.6 branch/tag:
>
> chandler/
> branches/
> 0.6/
There is no way anyone browsing the repository would be able to figure
that out. If we did not want to maintain the tags directory, then naming
the release like this would be more understandable:
chandler/
branches/
release-0.6/
although I really prefer the tags directory approach.
> What I see that needs to change to support Heikki's proposal is that I
> would create the 0.6 branch/tag in the tags directory:
>
> chandler/
> tags/
> 0.6/
Yeah, this is my preference. Alternatively
chandler/
tags/
release-0.6/
to make it really clear.
Something that really threw me off in the current structure is that when
I went looking for 0.6.1 I found this:
chandler/
branches/
0.6/
chandler/
hardhat/
external/
internal/
0.6.1/
Chandler_0.6/
chandler/
hardhat/
external/
internal/
chandler/
hardhat/
external/
internal/
Chandler_0.6/
chandler/
hardhat/
external/
internal/
Notice how 0.6 and 0.6.1 contain different directories, and how
Chandler_0.6 is in two places. Also, a directory that contains chandler,
hardhat, external and internal should IMO not have any other directories
under it.
--
Heikki Toivonen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
