Hi,
since "feature branch" does not seem to be feasible for all branches,
what about just using the term "branch" for what we now call a CWS? A
"feature branch" could then describe a CWS where (mainly) a feature is
being implemented, while a "bugfix branch" could describe a branch where
bugs are being fixed. Btw., personally I am not sure whether we need
these more detailed definitions.
And since "release branch" also seems to have its problems, why not use
the term "codeline" for our current MWSs?
Regards,
Jörg
Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb:
Hi Jan,
"release branch" is fine with me, but DEV300 is exactly not a "release
branch". "Trunk" doesn't sound right as well. "development branch" might
work.
I tend to call a MWS nowadays a "major code line" but that's kinda ugly
as well.
For the term CWS it's even more difficult: a CWS is much more for us
than just a "feature branch" and it might actually not contain a feature
at all.
I'm all for a more streamlined jargon, but it might be not that easy to
find something which is precise and concise and universally
understandably at the same time.
Suggestions for a coherent nomenclature are welcome!
Heiner
Jan Holesovsky wrote:
Hi Heiner,
On Friday 28 August 2009, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
Please contact me if you have problems, suggestions etc.
Actually, I have a suggestion ;-)
Do you think - with the switch to Mercurial - would it be possible to stop
using the 'CWS' and 'MWS' terminology, and instead switch to the commonly
used 'feature branch' and 'release branch' terms?
Thank you,
Kendy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
