I agree, symfont-x+x sounds better! On 10/15/07, Dave Dash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Personally, I find that plugins that have version numbers in line with the > product they support is helpful, so I am for using tags as people wish > (version numbers internally, etc) and branches to reflect what version of > symfony they support. > > +1 for symfony-1.0 / symfony-1.1 / symfony-2.0 scheme > > On 10/15/07, Ian P. Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Currently, a lot of Plugins are stored in svn directly under thier root > > folder - that is to say, tehre is no 'trunk', 'branches' and 'tags' > > folder. > > > > Recently, I've updated sfGuardDoctrine to have a branches folder, and a > > trunk, and sfDoctrine has also been updated. No doubt others have too. > > > > However, in sfDoctrine, there's a 'branches/0.1' folder that's for > > symfony 1.0.x, in sfGuardDoctrine, I called it 'branches/1.0.x'. On > > IRC, we have discuessed using 'branches/symfony- 1.0' for the doctrine > > SimpleCMS plugin that I'm abotu to start porting to sf1.1. > > > > We really need consistancy here - what shall we use? > > > > I think 'symfony-1.0' is probably the best name - and I should probably > > > > update sfDoctrine and sfGuardDoctrine to reflect this convention (sorry > > to everyone that's updated externals once already - but this is for the > > best isn't it?). > > > > Ideas? Thoughts? > > > > reviewsby.us > > gtalk: dave.dash > > > > > >
-- Lucas Stephanou --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "symfony developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/symfony-devs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
