ugh, sorry, I've been busy this week and didn't see a timeout, so a
response got delayed.
I really don't like this format. public doesn't have any meaning to
it (tmp suggests, well, it's temporary). I'd rather have /tmp/ and /
tmp/private or something like that. Or /tmp/ and /tmp/public/.
Either way :/.
Brian
On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:21 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
I didn't really put this in RFC format with a timeout, but no one
objected, so I have created:
http://svn.open-mpi.org/svn/ompi/public
Developers should feel free to use this tree for public temporary
branches. Specifically:
- use /tmp if your branch is intended to be private
- use /public if your branch is intended to be public
Enjoy.
On Aug 10, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Right now all branches under /tmp are private to the OMPI core group
(e.g., to allow unpublished academic work). However, there are
definitely cases where it would be useful to allow public branches
when there's development work that is public but not yet ready for
the trunk. Periodically, we go an assign individual permissions to /
tmp branches (like I just did to /tmp/vt-integration), but it would
be easier if we had a separate tree for public "tmp" branches.
Would anyone have an objection if I added /public (or any better name
that someone can think of) for tmp-style branches, but that are open
for read-only access to the public?
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
