I would agree. It is a cleaner naming convention in my mind.
> Bordet, Simone wrote:
>
> > My idea of using the Rel_x_y_z tags was related to merging only, so those
> > tags are "internal" and go their way, separated from the JBoss_x_y_z tags
> > that instead represent a "public" release.
> > So, instead of moving the tag with 'cvs tag -F' I would then just make
> > another tag
> > cvs tag Rel_2_2_2 (from jboss root directory)
> > and then after another patch tag again, cvs tag Rel_2_2_3, and so on, and
> > *then* a JBoss_2_2_1[_Final] tag. Given the last discussion about FINAL I
> > agree we can drop it. This way we always have tags that refer to a
> > particular patch, and we can checkout the code prior to the patch, after it,
> > thing that would be not possible if we moved the tag with 'cvs tag -F'.
> > Do you agree ?
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to call these tags Rel_2_2_0_a, Rel_2_2_0_b,
> then, after JBoss_2_2_1, Rel_2_2_1_a, Rel_2_2_1_b, etc?
>
> Toby.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
