On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:24:14PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:59:51AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ok, this is a mess, so we probably need to hold a little flamewar about how
> > we
> > want the tree organized or something, before we start moving stuff back and
> > fort.
> >
> > I believe that the trunk is for main development, and it is important that
> > we
> > keep the version we are actually using in trunk, and not the next version as
> > the linux-2.6.13-rcsomething.
> >
> > Also, i am not overly convinced about the branch stuff, especially for main
> > branches where we are going to work on, and not some obscure stuff only some
> > will want to play with.
> >
> > Furthermore, now that the kernel subdir is going to be emptied of its
> > content,
> > in favour of the single linux-2.6 package, we could as well move linux-2.6
> > into the toplevel.
> >
> > So, my proposal was to have :
> >
> > /trunk/linux-2.6 <- main 2.6 kernel being uploaded to sid
>
> I liked that, I always hated the enormous hierachies in the old
> repository.
:) And we had already trimmed them from the first design.
> > /trunk/linux-2.6-experimental <- the experimental version.
>
> SVN allows branches to reside anywhere freely, including under /trunk,
> right? In that case this is okay, just make sure it really is a branch
> so merges work fine.
svn cp should be a branch. Merges are really a bit messy in svn, but i hear
svk can do miracles for you there.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
